[zzeeman]

From what I understand, Mark & LL's initial focus was on going to court against the un-constitutionality of "deem and pass." He has mentioned the un-constitutionality of forcing citizens to purchase a good/service (i.e., health insurance) as a next step (assuming it passes w/o "deem and pass" being used).

The thing that I don't understand is this: if a court (probably have to be SCOTUS) decides that the mandatory purchase of health insurance is un-constitutionality, does that throw out the whole thing? or just that part of it? And, what are the impacts overall if the "mandatory purchase" part was indeed removed?

[PIF]

“the mandatory purchase of health insurance is un-constitutionality, does that throw out the whole thing? or just that part of it?”

Likely that it will only make that part null, but, without that in, the whole theory collapses