Justice Kennedy on at least two occasions suggested that going into the law to pick and choose which provisions should survive would actually be a more awesome exercise of legislative power than striking down the law as a whole.
So basic yet so profound - frightening that it actually had to be uttered and that it becomes news.
I haven't read all of the coverage but did anyone raise the point that if Congress wanted the law to stand should a portion was deemed Unconstitutional, they would have added a severability clause as they have done so many times before?
posted on 03/29/2012 7:14:28 AM PDT
(Steyn: "If Greece has been knocking back the ouzo, we're face down in the vat.")
The Center for American Progress and the various Marxist groups that wrote Obamacare knew exactly what they were doing regarding severability. IMO, it was omitted as a way to dare the court, as in, “the court will not have the courage to dump the entire statute just because of one clause.”
posted on 03/29/2012 7:26:41 AM PDT
(No court will save us from ourselves.)
I don’t understand Kennedy’s argument. It stands to reason that a bill that has unconstitutional provisions may also actually have constitutional provisions. Now, the individual mandate may make the entire bill unconstitutional as a whole.
posted on 03/29/2012 8:53:01 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson