Can someone help me understand this?
1) The Constitution, as amended, gives the federal government the right to levy taxes uniformly across the states, and also to tax income.
2) The federal gasoline tax is neither levied uniformly across states nor is it a tax on income. Thus it must be justified under something other than the explicit taxing powers set forth in the Constitution.
3) I’ve always sort of presumed that the missing justification is provided by the Commerce Clause.
4) In other words, the right to levy a gasoline tax seems to be dependent on the Commerce Clause.
5) By the same reasoning, the right to levy a tax on not-having-health-insurance would seem to be dependent on the Commerce Clause.
6) But John Roberts says explicitly that the Commerce Clause can not be used to justify a tax on not-having-health-insurance.
7) How, then, can a tax on not-having-health insurance possibly be constitutional? It’s not levied uniformly across states, it’s not a tax on income, and we have the Chief Justice’s word that it can’t be justified by the Commerce Clause. Whence, then, the constitutional authority to levy such a tax?