Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constituion: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
It doesen't get any more substantive than that! Indeed, before it was a penalty and the word "tax" was absent from the bill. Now that it is a tax, dispite the fact that it is called a penalty in the bill, it must go through regular order and originate in the House as per Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution in order for it to be constitution. It did not do that!
No, it's not substantive. It's a procedural technicality. Maybe laws ought to be struck down on any an all such violations. But given that PPACA was such an obvious violation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and given that Roberts was willing to perform all manner of embarrassing rationalization to accommodate it, it seems a stretch to think he wouldn't skip right by this hurdle even more easily.
Wrong again. Roberts didn't have the authority to rule on Article 1 Section 7 grounds because those were not the grounds the individual mandate was challenged or defended on. Furthermore, when it is the plain language of the Constitution, though procedural in nature, it is still more than substantive. If it were House and Senate procedural rules in question the SCOTUS would refuse to accept the case. Seeing as it is a violation of the plain and very clear language of the Constitution, or rules of which cannot be changed by the House and Senate, the complaint holds both substance and merit.
What?
Then that would mean Citizen's United and many other decisions would be bounced.
Of course..that's not the case even with your parameters. Because you are cherry picking.