Given that it was all but inevitable (politically) that this would be found constitutional
I don't think that was true. It was a close run thing, and there is some evidence that Roberts changed his initial vote. Even if he didn't inevitable isn't an accurate description.
An additional benefit of it being considered a tax is that you don't need a super-majority in the senate to get rid of it.
Another theoretical advantage is that as a tax it would be open to challenge since tax bills have to originate in the house. This originated in the senate. The house had a version, and the senate had a version, but the senate changed, when a Republican replaced a Democrat and it no longer would pass a new bill, so the house had to pass the senates version in order to get a law. It wouldn't matter as a mandate. But that's only a theoretical advantage since the courts won't consider the law again. In fact its really more of a disadvantage, since it just makes the law more unconstitutional, and all else being equal, if a negative law is going to imposed, and isn't going to be struck down as against the constitution, I'd rather it actually follow the constitution.
Still I agree that framing it as a tax, probably allows for less government expansion than saying a mandate is constitutional. (Probably but not definitely, the government could pass more such taxes to control, and the courts could allow them under this precedent.) |
