The law of the case will be what the SC says it is not what you or I or anyone else says it is.
Those judges have life appointments the ruling is going to be 5-4 whatever way it goes. Do you really think its logical to think members of the SC is not going to get paid based on their holding in this case?
You clearly do not understand the economic picture, but the justices do. It they were to take the entire GDP as taxes, it still wouldn’t pay the cost.
We’re probably passed the point of no return; Porter Stansbury thinks so. We just hit an all time low of the Dollar vs the Yuan; is that supporting your La-la-las?
Correct. Even if there IS a severability clause, SCOTUS can invalidate it - OR, if it IS NOT there, they can rule otherwise.
As Chief Justice Marshal declared in Marbury v. Madison:
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is ..."
By your logic, the SC doesn’t need the constitution; are you one of those?
The SC is not a legislative body, so yes they do need a severability clause to guide what is severable, unless they set out to legislate. The originalists of the court do not do that.