Posted on 09/28/2011 12:24:42 PM PDT by Hunton Peck
“So that means that if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the whole act is overturned?”
My understanding is that the lack of a severability clause just gives the court the right to throw out the entire law if one part of it is found unconstitutional. One lower court judge (Vinson of FL) did just that. However, the 11th circuit only struck down the individual mandate, leaving the rest of the law in place. I believe the Supremes have one of 3 choices:
1. Let the entire law stand.
2. Strike down parts of the law-like the individual mandate.
3. Strike down the entire law.
Because there is no severability clause(and this was the case because they had to pass the Senate version of the bill, which was written in a hurry just before Christmas 2009 and was meant to be just a draft, but they could not amend it after Scott Brown’s election in January 2010), the Supremes should find it much easier and more justifiable to go with option #3.
A great rant. Thanks for your response.
The NFIB finally jumped the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; they were caught sleeping with the Democrats.
Judge Vinson in the district court vacated the entire law because of the unconstitutional mandate and sever-ability. The 11th Circuit, then, vacated the mandate but left the rest of the law intact. The SCOTUS is considering sever-ability. The ruling will determine whether the law remains or is vacated entirely.
National referendum on this one, please!
Didn’t mean to butt in... Just letting you know you’re not alone.
This isn’t what Holder and/or Barry wanted to happen. Now with our side doing this as Rush said yesterday, it is now speeded up at the USSC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.