Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MrChips
They anticipated lawsuits in the bill:

Section 155
If any provision of this division, or any application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the provisions of this division and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.

In other words, it looks like a suit has to be filed on every part of the bill to kill it. It can't be killed as a whole.

49 posted on 03/23/2010 10:31:39 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: mnehring

That, in and of itself, is unconstitutional, as the Constitution applies itself equally to every citizen, regardless of provision or circumstance of the individual.


57 posted on 03/23/2010 10:34:41 AM PDT by SpinnerWebb (mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
In other words, it looks like a suit has to be filed on every part of the bill to kill it. It can't be killed as a whole.

Presuming the Court doesn't find that provision unconstitutional, of course. ;)

59 posted on 03/23/2010 10:34:56 AM PDT by kevkrom (De-fund Obamacare in 2011, repeal in 2013!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

That proviso is in itself a violation of the Constitution and holds no force.


61 posted on 03/23/2010 10:35:07 AM PDT by MrChips (MrChips)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
Anyone who thinks this will be defeated is living in OZ.

They have orchestrated this with all these possibilities in mind. Their intent is unstoppable.

It will take a complete Republican majority and President to pass it with 60% of the vote and even then, it cannot be completely reversed.

66 posted on 03/23/2010 10:37:41 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP ( Give me Liberty, or give me an M-24A2!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

I might be wrong, but that language in and of itself is probably unconstitutional, which may be enough in and of itself to kill the whole bill...


98 posted on 03/23/2010 10:55:34 AM PDT by jurroppi1 (America, do not commit Barry Care-y!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
If any provision of this division, or any application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the provisions of this division and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.

This is standard language in just about every significant law, including McCain-Feingold. Notwithstanding this language, if the SCOTUS invalidates the heart, brain, or guts of the legislation, the rest of the body will die.

104 posted on 03/23/2010 10:57:58 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

but the mandate is really the centerpiece. without it, the whole bill is radically different. Without the mandate, the cost and impact on the deficit is up substantially. So, if the mandate is gone, a new CBO projection would likely show that the law will increase the deficit by trillions.

without the mandate, the whole concept collapses.


105 posted on 03/23/2010 10:58:26 AM PDT by jeltz25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
In other words, it looks like a suit has to be filed on every part of the bill to kill it. It can't be killed as a whole.

Don't ya just hate these MARXISTS?

Great speech, don't know date
107 posted on 03/23/2010 11:00:34 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barack Hussein 0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

In other words, it looks like a suit has to be filed on every part of the bill to kill it. It can’t be killed as a whole.
********************************

Not quite. If the court finds that the unconstitutional parts of the bill are so important to the sense of the bill when left, the court will find it unconstitutional in toto.


108 posted on 03/23/2010 11:00:58 AM PDT by Ex-Democrat Dean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

Bring it on! That statement PROVES they KNEW they were doing unconstitutional things! Gawd, the NERVE of those people!! >:-(


117 posted on 03/23/2010 11:07:11 AM PDT by pillut48 ("Stand now. Stand together. Stand for what is right."-Gov.Sarah Palin, "Going Rogue")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

I don’t believe them saying that does that if the SC says otherwise, But God help us if a Conservative Justice retires or dies.


203 posted on 03/23/2010 1:57:14 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

Not so sure about that. If the SCOTUS declares it’s unConstitutional - good luck keeping any part of it intact (esp. if the conclusion is that the States have jurisdiction over Health Care and not the Feds.) That would pretty much cook its goose. Just because it says it can’t be touched doesn’t MEAN it can’t be touched. (Remember the Reid portion where they tried to insert that no future Congress could dismantle it and the Republicans said “Yeah, right. Good luck with that.”)?


232 posted on 03/23/2010 3:12:06 PM PDT by JLLH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
They anticipated lawsuits in the bill:

Section 155

If any provision of this division, or any application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the provisions of this division and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.

In other words, it looks like a suit has to be filed on every part of the bill to kill it. It can't be killed as a whole.

This is boilerplate stuff ...

However, the gas that drives the engine in this bill is the insurance mandate - if that provision alone is ruled unconstitutional, then the whole thing goes ...

The only way for the insurance companies to offer insurance to all, no exemption of pre-existing conditions, and at the same rates [no charging more for smokers or obese people] is to make up for it in volume [young healthy people who rarely get sick]. More money coming in than is going out

If mandatory healthcare is unconstitutional - so is the fine for not having it. SAVE BIG BUX - no prenium, no fine !!! AND, per the bill, if you do get sick - you can sign up for it then, pay your prenium, and get treated.

'Course since healthcare is no longer mandatory, you can drop your coverage once you get well and repeat the process next time you get sick ...

234 posted on 03/23/2010 3:15:54 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
Section 155
If any provision of this division, or any application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the provisions of this division and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.

It's very possible that the Supreme Court could rule that very clause as unconstitutional, and therefore nonbinding on the entirety of the bill.

238 posted on 03/23/2010 3:21:10 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

Standard severability clause.


281 posted on 03/23/2010 6:42:58 PM PDT by americanophile (DeMint/Ryan '12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson