Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JohnSmith2007

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

12 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Lesotho
Timeline

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ukraine
Timeline

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?


VERMONT! I Reject Your Reality...and Substitute My Own!

Gary And Alla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ukraine
Timeline

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.


VERMONT! I Reject Your Reality...and Substitute My Own!

Gary And Alla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline

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.


* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Lesotho
Timeline

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Lesotho
Timeline

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Lesotho
Timeline

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ukraine
Timeline

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?


VERMONT! I Reject Your Reality...and Substitute My Own!

Gary And Alla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...