Lack of a "severability" clause could void entire HC bill

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I hadn't heard about this bit before. This means if any part, no matter how small, is found unconstitutional then the entire bill is void.

Severability Clause at Heart of Judge Vinson's Ruling That 'Obamacare' Is Unconstitutional

A federal judge in Florida has ruled that the federal health care overhaul legislation is unconstitutional.

Why? Because the legislation did not include a severability clause.

The severability clause problem is related to perhaps the most controversial part of the law: the mandate that requires all Americans to possess health care coverage.

Roger Vinson, the federal judge behind today's ruling, agreed with plaintiffs who argued that if the mandate is unconstitutional, the entire law should be struck down.

That's because the legislation lacked the so-called "severability clause," which allows a portion of a law to be struck down while leaving the rest of it intact. According to Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler, it's "meant to protect the bulk of a law in the event that a small portion of it is determined to be unconstitutional. That small portion must go, or be changed, but pretty much everything else is allowed to stand."

The New York Times also addressed the health care overhaul's lack of a severability clause in November, saying that Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli was one of the plaintiffs who was emphasizing that the law would have to be struck down in its entirety if any part of it were found unconstitutional. Said the Times:

An earlier version of the legislation, which passed the House last November, included severability language. But that clause did not make it into the Senate version, which ultimately became law. A Democratic aide who helped write the bill characterized the omission as an oversight.

This doesn't necessarily mean that there is no hope for the law. According to the Times, the Supreme Court could hypothetically determine that Congress would have passed the law even without the unconstitutional component -- in this case, the insurance mandate -- and allow the rest of the legislation to stand.

Vinson was the second federal judge to declare the law unconstitutional. Just last month, Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled that parts of the legislation were unconstitutional.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/31/severability-clause-at-heart-of-judge-vinsons-ruling-that-obam/

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

2000+ pages of congressional BS written by a pack of lawyers and they did it wrong.

Do you REALLY want them handling your health care?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I hadn't heard about this bit before. This means if any part, no matter how small, is found unconstitutional then the entire bill is void.

Severability Clause at Heart of Judge Vinson's Ruling That 'Obamacare' Is Unconstitutional

A federal judge in Florida has ruled that the federal health care overhaul legislation is unconstitutional.

Why? Because the legislation did not include a severability clause.

The severability clause problem is related to perhaps the most controversial part of the law: the mandate that requires all Americans to possess health care coverage.

Roger Vinson, the federal judge behind today's ruling, agreed with plaintiffs who argued that if the mandate is unconstitutional, the entire law should be struck down.

That's because the legislation lacked the so-called "severability clause," which allows a portion of a law to be struck down while leaving the rest of it intact. According to Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler, it's "meant to protect the bulk of a law in the event that a small portion of it is determined to be unconstitutional. That small portion must go, or be changed, but pretty much everything else is allowed to stand."

The New York Times also addressed the health care overhaul's lack of a severability clause in November, saying that Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli was one of the plaintiffs who was emphasizing that the law would have to be struck down in its entirety if any part of it were found unconstitutional. Said the Times:

An earlier version of the legislation, which passed the House last November, included severability language. But that clause did not make it into the Senate version, which ultimately became law. A Democratic aide who helped write the bill characterized the omission as an oversight.

This doesn't necessarily mean that there is no hope for the law. According to the Times, the Supreme Court could hypothetically determine that Congress would have passed the law even without the unconstitutional component -- in this case, the insurance mandate -- and allow the rest of the legislation to stand.

Vinson was the second federal judge to declare the law unconstitutional. Just last month, Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled that parts of the legislation were unconstitutional.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/31/severability-clause-at-heart-of-judge-vinsons-ruling-that-obam/

The just wouldn't take the time to get it right. So now it will go back to the Republican house to be re-written. Swift move Obama. What a dufus.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

2000+ pages of congressional BS written by a pack of lawyers and they did it wrong.

Do you REALLY want them handling your health care?

but they are lawyers, they are supposed to know what they are doing. or so i've been told on vj.

[^_^ 5,021]

Judge Henry Hudson previously ruled the mandate unconstitutional but did not think the lack of severability had the impact Vinson thinks it has. SCOTUS will decide.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Judge Henry Hudson previously ruled the mandate unconstitutional but did not think the lack of severability had the impact Vinson thinks it has. SCOTUS will decide.

Leaving out the clause is a pretty bone headed move though. It shows just how this bill was written in panic mode and without much thought. Getting something passed was the only goal.

[^_^ 5,021]

Leaving out the clause is a pretty bone headed move though. It shows just how this bill was written in panic mode and without much thought. Getting something passed was the only goal.

Without the mandate, the private-insurer led model of the PPACA no longer works. If the SCOTUS decides against the mandate, then you'll be thankful there was no severability clause.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Without the mandate, the private-insurer led model of the PPACA no longer works. If the SCOTUS decides against the mandate, then you'll be thankful there was no severability clause.

This is true but I bet it wasn't intentional. If the entire law is found void I would hope the reps will take the opportunity to show what a good bill would look like with a strong SP type of system. I know that has no chance and that is why the dems should be shamed for years over the lost chance they had. Once again the fed government has let us down.

[^_^ 5,021]

This is true but I bet it wasn't intentional. If the entire law is found void I would hope the reps will take the opportunity to show what a good bill would look like with a strong SP type of system. I know that has no chance and that is why the dems should be shamed for years over the lost chance they had. Once again the fed government has let us down.

Single payer from the GOP? You must be joking.

Single payer was always a no-go, even from the Dems. Why? Not enough progressives, too many blue dogs - that's it in a nutshell.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Single payer from the GOP? You must be joking.

Single payer was always a no-go, even from the Dems. Why? Not enough progressives, too many blue dogs - that's it in a nutshell.

That is why I said:

I know that has no chance

This shouldn't be a conservative/progressive thing. It should be a matter of national interest. Without a healthy population you can't have a strong economy. Between the $400/month I pay for insurance and the $2000/year I pay in co-pay and deductibles it would be cheaper for me to have SP. It should be a no-brainer.

[^_^ 5,021]

It should be a no-brainer.

Aye, but we have Senators on both sides who are owned in full by corporate interests. They are the real third party and are much more dangerous than the extremists on either side.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Without the mandate, the private-insurer led model of the PPACA no longer works. If the SCOTUS decides against the mandate, then you'll be thankful there was no severability clause.

Yep. And the Dems will have no one to blame but themselves. Dumb@sses.

It would actually be cheaper and easier now to work with Republicans to get something better set up. This system was never about healthcare, it was about establishing a framework of government control. The mandate was necessary in order to push people into eventually taking government care. The plan would then change when they had enough on board and VOILA!

Do you see any supporters of this piece of sewage looking forward to the Supreme Court ruling?