[kevao]

Whether you like it or not, the lack of a severability clause does not mean that the Court will strike down the entire bill because of one Unconstitutional provision.

Cuccinelli of VA and McCollum of FL are both under that impression. I've heard each of them on several occasions state that if SCOTUS finds just on part of ObamaCare unconstitutional, then the *entire* law goes down because of its lack of a severability clause.

[freedomwarrior998]

"Unless it is evident that the legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law." Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission.

"[A] court should refrain from invalidating more of the statute than is necessary. . . . [W]henever an act of Congress contains unobjectionable provisions separable from those found to be unconstitutional, it is the duty of this court to so declare, and to maintain the act in so far as it is valid." Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock.

"[W]e try not to nullify more of a legislature’s work than is necessary, for we know that [a] ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people." Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New Eng.