05-20-2010, 10:12 AM
Quote:"Apparently there was no 'severability' clause written into this law, which shows how amateurish the process was," he wrote. "Virtually every bill I've ever read includes a provision that if any part of the law is ruled unconstitutional the rest of the law will remain intact. Not this one. That will likely mean that the entire law will be thrown out if a part of it is found to violate the Constitution."
More Soviet flavored disinformation. The lack of a severability clause has little to no bearing on the remainder of the bill. It is not mandatory that a bill has a severability clause in order to protect the remainder of a bill in case one part of it is ruled unconstitutional. Intent of the legislators is what counts. Would they have still put the bill through without the unconstitutional part? Can the rest of the bill stand without the unconstitutional part? Those are the issues that matter. Look up Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 684 (1987)