And what law school did you flunk out of?
The Supreme Court does not have a line item veto.
Do you recall how it was noted that Congress forgot to put a "saving clause" in Obamacare? It was noted that their failure to do so would mean that if ANY PART of Obamacare were found to be unconstitutional, then the whole law would be unconstitutional and void? That is why Roberts was so adamant about finding any way to save it.
Well, the same is true of marriage laws. When a law is passed by the legislature that includes some provision that is found to be unconstitutional, the entire statute that contains the governor's signature is voided and the legislature then needs to rewrite the law and get it passed. If there was another previous statute that was overturned or amended when the unconstitutional law was passed, then that statute goes back into effect.
The Supreme Court voided every state statute that contains the words "Marriage shall be limited to one man and one woman". So those states that have those words are currently operating either under a previous law that did not contain those provisions or they are operating without any marriage laws whatsoever.
And if people can still get marriage licenses without the limitation of "between one man and one woman", then if the State is going to recognize marriages and issue licenses, then it is not merely gay people who can get married, but polygamy is now the law of the land without limitation. Two men and three women? Five women and three men?
Where is the limitation?
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
You mean severance clause.
When a law is passed by the legislature that includes some provision that is found to be unconstitutional, the entire statute that contains the governor's signature is voided and the legislature then needs to rewrite the law and get it passed. If there was another previous statute that was overturned or amended when the unconstitutional law was passed, then that statute goes back into effect.
Courts strike down state (and local) laws all the time, every day, across the country. Sometimes federal courts do it. Sometimes state courts do it. Sometimes they are criminal laws. Sometimes they are civil laws. In some situations, it may even involve a provision found in a state constitution.
A court can strike down all of a law (if applicable to the circumstances). A court can rule narrower, striking down only part. This is by no means a black/white, 100% of the time this way or that way, kind of thing. So many variables can potentially go into why something may or may not get struck down and to what degree.
If you don't know already, the answer to any legal question is - "it depends".
You say courts do not have a "line item veto". Of course, as you know, that is the wrong terminology. But, as far as the idea, sometimes they essentially do. And they do it all the time. To say an entire law gets thrown out 100% of the time anytime a court strikes it down - with or without a severance clause - is not reflected in reality whatsoever.
Sometimes, in fact, it is necessary to pass new legislation before the government function or duty can be resumed following an adverse court ruling. But not always. Not by a long shot. That would be absolute judicial and legislative chaos.
So those states that have those words are currently operating either under a previous law that did not contain those provisions or they are operating without any marriage laws whatsoever.
Again, you have this wrong.
Tell you what, since you are advancing this "theory", why not contact Davis's lawyers with this finding of yours that apparently has escaped every conservative legal scholar, law professor, former/current judge, former/current prosecutor, etc?
People playing armchair attorney and saying Kim Davis has no law to operate under embarrass themselves.