[ctdonath2]

Should severability be invoked, I'd expect the court would be obligated to examine the ripple effects of doing so - determining whether what remains is or isn't constitutional. Not a trivial task, considering the bill's two thousand seven hundred pages of modification to existing law. Per my prior example, if the judges decide to take out the entire ground floor of a high-rise building, they're obligated to figure out how to prevent what remains from collapsing - and they're not architects. Maybe more like taking out the oil plug on a car: seems simple, but not quite obvious to all how the chain of consequences will destroy the engine.

[djf]

Clement made a brilliant argument that if Congress passes a bill as a general guideline and INCLUDES a severability clause, then what they are saying is “We want most if not all of this, but we’re ok if a piece doesn’t work and we get the rest”

But if Congress passes a bill with NO severability clause, then they are basically saying “That’s it, Jack. Take it or leave it! All or nothing!”