[SirJohnBarleycorn]

This is moronic reasoning.

He claims it’s not a “mandate” because the penalty for non-compliance is called a “tax”? Even a ten-year-old can see through such sophistry.

And because the mandate doesn’t apply to certain people, like the military, it’s misleading to call it an “individual” mandate?

So I was looking for an actual legal argument in this article. I found none and instead found patently silly semantic nonsense.

[freeandfreezing]

You're exactly right - by that nitwits logic you could have a tax on people who register in the Democratic party -- after all that surely effects commerce, they are more likely to buy Birkestocks, granola, or a Toyota Prius. And charging a tax because somebody fails to do something, like buy health insurance, or register in the Republican party, surely isn't unconstitutional.

So I guess we should plan on such a tax. It might raise a lot of money, particularly if it is extended to include membership in groups with similar liberal tendencies.