[sloop]

at one point - in the severability arguments - there was a discussion where they talked about standing - and someone said ‘the taxpayers have no standing’

i’ll post it later

[HonestConservative]

I’ve got that in my notes.

I think they meant this bill in particular as it is written.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I tried to listen to that link you posted and couldn’t open it with my Mac.

[HonestConservative]

It was about the piles of minutia in the bill, each section applying to a different issue, BC, drug abuse programs, mammograms etc.

If they severed the mandatory participation clause, they were talking about the individual tax payer having no remaining recourse in the courts to get rid of each itty bitty tyrannical aspect.

I took that as an argument AGAINST severability.

How did you take it?