[monocle]

Have you ever seen a flow diagram of the law with all of interactions and feedbacks? With a law as complex as this law is one must have a comprehensive understanding of the entire law before one can render a decision on only a single clause or section.

[JediJones]

[slowhandluke]

Assuming law is a form of logic, and it's the same logic used in science, then you do not need to understand the whole thing to prove it fails. If you can show that some mathematical proof includes '1+1=3' as part of it's logic, you get to assume the whole thing is wrong. If a patent application breaks the conservation of energy in any part, it's a perpetual motion machine and not patentable in whole.

If you want to fix the law, you might need to understand the whole thing. But to know that it's broken, you do not.

If the mandate part fails, the whole law fails. Whether the mandate is constitutional does not depend on any other part of the law. What part of this law do you think would change the fact of the mandate being unconstitutional?

Laws as complex as this one are made that complex only to hide things, and usually to hide tyrannical or corrupt things. We are lucky in this case that the tyrannical individual mandate is out in the open.