Posted on 06/29/2012 10:11:02 AM PDT by BedRock
Yes, doesn’t matter what you call it. Be it mandate, contract, insurance security, etc..
By placing the term “tax” on the condition of non-compliance with said law, that in and of itself makes it unconstitutional.
Trouble is, it can only be tried in court once the “tax” is actually charged to an individual citizen. The other issue is that, like I stated in my article, only the House can introduce law to raise any tax, not the Senate, no matter what name you apply to it. I personally think this should have been thrown out as unconstitutional. Because it was argued amd passed in the Senate as not being a tax, and was passed with votes on the basis that it was to be justified through the Commerce Clause. Because that was misleading to the Senators, and the Public.
It is an unapportioned head (poll) tax.
Poll taxes almost always turn out badly, from Rome to Margaret Thatcher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_per_head
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots
(1990 bringing down the Thatcher government)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.