4) The income tax, permitted by the 16th Amendment, which can be imposed without apportionment among the states.
Do you understand HOW the Supreme Court reconciled the direct contradiction between [Art 1, sec. 2, cl. 3; Art. 1, sec. 9, cl. 4], and the 16th Amendment?
It recognized that they addressed DIFFERENT "PERSONS" - non-corporate, and corporate, respectively.
As such, Obamacare is NOT under [Art 1, sec. 2, cl. 3; Art. 1, sec. 9, cl. 4], but IS Constitutional under the 16th Amendment.
That's what Roberts directly addressed when he wrote:
"The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax."
Sorry, I am not buying it. The 16th Amendment specifies that a tax can be imposed on income. There is nothing about income in the Roberts decision.