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

To: DanMiller

“The Supreme Court could strike down the insurance mandate but leave most of the rest of the statute standing ... “

I’ve heard from more than one source that the way the bill was written, the mandate is not severable. I’m not expert, but I believe it to be true, I think I heard it on Mark Levin’s show, to cite one source.


26 posted on 09/29/2011 11:49:52 AM PDT by brownsfan (Aldous Huxley and Mike Judge were right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: brownsfan

The law does not have a severability clause, but it is possible that SCOTUS could sever the individual mandate from the rest of the law anyway. Can’t predict what SCOTUS might do.


28 posted on 09/29/2011 12:00:58 PM PDT by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: brownsfan
The way the bill is written it is indeed unworkable without the healthcare mandate. That's why Judge Vinson refused to sever the mandate and killed the whole thing.

However, all of the other judges who have considered the matter have felt bound by judicial precedent to sever it, let the rest stand, and to let the Congress figure out what to do. An alternative would have been for a judge to try to rewrite it, but that would have exceeded the recognized powers of the judiciary.

Although I think the whole bill stinks, some parts are not clearly unconstitutional. Without the mandate, it will be necessary for the Congress to start again, possibly from scratch. That would be distracting to say the least to President Obama during his campaign and would bring ObamaCare to the forefront of the debate. That's where, in my view, it should be.
32 posted on 09/29/2011 1:18:41 PM PDT by DanMiller (Dan Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: brownsfan
I’ve heard from more than one source that the way the bill was written, the mandate is not severable.

Not that it is prohibited from severability, but the whole house of cards is predicated on the fact that the mandate [assuming most people buy the insurance] pays for the rest of the program.

Remove the mandate and the whole thing falls apart ...

BTW: The assumption that most people are gonna purchase the insurance is a fallacy. IF [and that is a BIG if] the mandate is ruled constitutional - I suspect that MOST people are gonna pay the fine [which is about 1/10th the cost].

If that happens - same outcome, the whole thing falls apart [lack of money] ...

33 posted on 09/29/2011 1:48:32 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | 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