“Now, that is gone. It’s not a ‘taking’ if they just call it a ‘tax.’”
We were already basically left unprotected from takings by Penn Central Transportation Co. v New York. This—calling takings a “tax”—is just another angle from which to hit it. The federal government’s nearly unlimited powers are implied by a great many SCOTUS decisions, most of those coming after the infamous “switch in time that saved nine.” It just takes a while for it to be made explicit.
Sometimes there’s a surprise, as when Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy declined to stretch Wickard a bnit further by denying the commerce clause’s application to “regulating” non-activity. But it more than made up for that by stretching out Helvering to cover mandates backed by penalties which are to be considered “taxes.”
At least the court still arbitrarily protects those portions of the Bill of Rights it favors and certain other unspecified “rights” which may or may not actually exist. So Leviathan is not omnipotent. Only almost.
I agree with your analysis, but would make one other point. The “rights” we now have against our Leviathan are pretty much procedural, and not substantive. The government can do anything it wants, so long as it pays heed to certain legal formalities on the way there. As a practical matter, it reduces our Constitution to mere window dressing.