[QUOTE=doggin94it;4502957]From the dissent, agreeing with Roberts' "constitutional/statutory" distinction:[/QUOTE]
I am also mystified as to how a "mandate" can be turned into a tax penalty. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the majority opinion essentially define any fine or monetary penalty, where there can be no other consequence attached, as a tax issue? What are the possible consequences of this? Could this result in other instances of actions that were previously considered "unlawful", being considered merely a matter of tax policy?
*edit* referring to this bit you posted
In distinguishing penalties from taxes, this Court has explained that “if the concept of penalty means anything,it means punishment for an unlawful act or omission.” . . . While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to doso is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law. [/quote]