To: BuckeyeTexan
But the lack of a severability clause wouldnt necessarily result in the overrule the rest of the legislation, which mostly have to do with spending and rationing the expansion of Medicaid, Medicare cuts, and sweeping regulatory authority and isnt wrapped up in the mandate. This has been the Courts approach to other issues, such as the recent Sarbanes-Oxley ruling, another law which lacked a severability clause, where they invalidated a portion of the law and allowed the rest to stand. Yes, but given that Obamacare is financially unworkable without the penalty, it wouldn't make sense to allow the rest of the law to stand without that critical part.
231 posted on
12/13/2010 10:50:35 AM PST by
vrwc1
To: vrwc1
One would hope so. And that was my reaction too. However, this is from the linked article.
Some things that the Court would likely leave unaffected would include the expansion of Medicaid, reporting obligations for businesses and hospitals, expansion of the Childrens Health Insurance Program, funds for family planning, expansion of state aging and disability resource centers, expanded funding for prevention programs and workplace education, reforms to inpatient rehabilitation and hospices, the addition of value-based payments for physicians and hospitals, and many provisions relating to Medicare services in rural areas
And thats just for starters. The point is that the overwhelming portion of this legislation is not tied directly to the individual mandate.
242 posted on
12/13/2010 11:05:48 AM PST by
BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
To: vrwc1
...it wouldn't make sense...And that's stopped the Democrats when?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson