No, Roberts will rule that it's a tax. [/sarc]
But seriously, if you think that this should-be slam dunk against Government overreach will be one you haven't been paying attention to things like Kelo, NFIB v. Sebelius, Kentucky v. King, etc. — There's a long history of the court ignoring the actual words of the Constitution in order to bring about the decision they want; here's a prime example from Schenck v. United States:
We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. […] When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.vs
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Translated:
because we're at war the Constitution doesn't apply.
One little thing you’ve missed.
Congress has not declared war. This executive has not followed the law as prescribed by the constitution.
It will go before the supreme court and the American people will win. A federal judge has already ruled so, it will be the SC upholding this decision.