Posted on 08/03/2009 6:01:59 PM PDT by Trteamer
Please read this and give me your opinions, I don't like the way it reads and need some clarification....
15 SEC. 155. SEVERABILITY.
16 If any provision of this Act, or any application of such
17 provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be un
18constitutional, the remainder of the provisions of this Act
19 and the application of the provision to any other person
20 or circumstance shall not be affected.
Is this for real? What does it mean?
Kicking lawyerese into high gear, it says that any lawsuit brought about for constitutionality shall only affect the person bringing the suit. The court can’t throw the entire law out or even the provision.
So if Joe Shmoe sues and wins on, say, mandatory end of life counseling. Joe Shmoe doesn’t get end of life counseling. Everyone else does and will continue to do so.
That’s kind of the way I’m reading it. How can it be unconstitutional to only one person and not another????
Considering how these dumbasses in congress treat the constitution, I don’t think they care
‘How can it be unconstitutional to only one person and not another????’
One would hope illegals wouldn’t have constitutional protections, etc.
It is very standard language to prevent one issue from invalidating the entire act.
I am sooooo glad that CONgress is full of lawyers. They can just write up stuff that us mortals cannot understand. It’s just standard gobledegoop, never mind how it reads....
Whatever happened to separation of powers? How can lawyers who are "officers of the court" be allowed to hold office in the Legislative branch of the government?
I did a pre-nup too! “All your base are belong to us.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.