Roberts did not invent any expansion of taxing authority. The virtually unlimited taxing authority of Congress has existed since Hamilton won the debate.
The limits on taxing rest with the People, not the Constitution.
I addressed a SPECIFIC point.
On
that
specific
point
you
are
wrong.
“Of course in many cases what was a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty could have been imposed as a tax upon permissible action; or what was imposed as a tax upon permissible action could have been a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty. But we know of no case, and the Government cites none, in which the imposition was, for constitutional purposes, both. The two are mutually exclusive.
[....]
In a few cases, this Court has held that a ‘tax’ imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held – never – that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax.”
Check out that damning “never” in the second paragraph. Alito, Scalia and Kennedy agree with me - or rather I agree with them. You're welcome to disagree. But that puts you with Roberts and rest of the liberals. In the old Constitution, Congress had the power to tax just about anything, but only if it called it a tax. As of yesterday, we have a new Constitution: one that allows Congress to concoct any sort of regulatory framework they desire so long as some sort of monetary penalty is associated with it, because that penalty is now a tax and thus permissible under Congress’ power to tax. Some conservatives think that they won some sort of victory because the decision places limits on permissible acts under the Commerce Clause. I say who cares? Roberts’ decision has rendered the Commerce Clause a dead letter.