Takin' Obamacare to Court

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Pat, you’re not right in believing that a bill has to be re-voted on when a court rules unconstitutional some part of it.

The remaining parts of the bill remain law.[/quote]

You may be right, I cannot find anything on the topic. I thought that if a low gets changed it’s not longer valid as that is what was not voted on…Like the Marijuana Stamp Act.[/quote]

For those who are curious:

â??â??Unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.â??â?? Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. at 108-09, (quoting Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Oklahoma, 286 U.S. 210, 234 (1932)).

82

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

For those who are curious:

â??â??Unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.â??â?? Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. at 108-09, (quoting Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Oklahoma, 286 U.S. 210, 234 (1932)).
[/quote]

Wouldn’t removing the mandate mean that that this bill would have never passed? The mandate is the spine of this bill, without it this bill will collapse(even faster). Wouldn’t that be enough to get this whole bill thrown out then.

83

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

For those who are curious:

Ã?¢??Ã?¢??Unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.Ã?¢??Ã?¢?? Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. at 108-09, (quoting Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Oklahoma, 286 U.S. 210, 234 (1932)).
[/quote]

Wouldn’t removing the mandate mean that that this bill would have never passed? The mandate is the spine of this bill, without it this bill will collapse(even faster). Wouldn’t that be enough to get this whole bill thrown out then.[/quote]

Without mandates the bill will collapse the health care system.

84

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

For those who are curious:

“Unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. at 108-09, (quoting Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Oklahoma, 286 U.S. 210, 234 (1932)).
[/quote]

Wouldn’t removing the mandate mean that that this bill would have never passed? The mandate is the spine of this bill, without it this bill will collapse(even faster). Wouldn’t that be enough to get this whole bill thrown out then.[/quote]

Depends on whether the court thinks the rest of it can still stand on its own.

If a bill is passed to do A, and provisions 1, 2, and 3 tell you how to do A, then 1, 2, and 3 are stricken if A is stricken as unconstitutional.

If a bill is passed to do A and B, and provisions 1, 2, and 3 tell you how to do A and B, then 1, 2, and 3 are only stricken to the extent A is stricken as unconstitutional and B is not stricken.

I’m trying (and failing, I think) to convey the difference between “wouldn’t have passed” as the idea of not getting enough votes, and “would not have enacted” as the idea of being beyond the scope of the Legislature’s constitutional powers. Does that make sense?

85

Maybe a way of explaining that would be that “wouldn’t have passed” would have the judges trying to divine the political situation and making a guess as to whether there would have been enough votes to pass or not. Which would be voodoo in many instances.

“Would not have enacted” I understand to mean that no knowledge is needed of what particular legislators held office at the time, no efforts need be made at estimating whether certain swing votes might have gone the other way or not, etc, but is instead from the perspective of whether a reasonable, prudent person might have voted for the bill without the parts in question.

There must be a fine and well-documented legal explanation of this, but I don’t know it.

86

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

For those who are curious:

“Unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. at 108-09, (quoting Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Oklahoma, 286 U.S. 210, 234 (1932)).
[/quote]

Wouldn’t removing the mandate mean that that this bill would have never passed? The mandate is the spine of this bill, without it this bill will collapse(even faster). Wouldn’t that be enough to get this whole bill thrown out then.[/quote]

Depends on whether the court thinks the rest of it can still stand on its own.

If a bill is passed to do A, and provisions 1, 2, and 3 tell you how to do A, then 1, 2, and 3 are stricken if A is stricken as unconstitutional.

If a bill is passed to do A and B, and provisions 1, 2, and 3 tell you how to do A and B, then 1, 2, and 3 are only stricken to the extent A is stricken as unconstitutional and B is not stricken.

I’m trying (and failing, I think) to convey the difference between “wouldn’t have passed” as the idea of not getting enough votes, and “would not have enacted” as the idea of being beyond the scope of the Legislature’s constitutional powers. Does that make sense?[/quote]

You make perfect sense. Lets hope for some change, and think that A is found to be unconstitutional so B-Z are stricken and forced to be revoted on. You want to see this bill hung out to dry.

By the way your foil hat is a little messed up.

87

Alpha F, I’d just like to say I love you. :smiley:

Seriously, If I ever manage to save up enough money to take the trip I’ve been planning across the pond, I’d like to look you up and have a beer or something. I like your attitude and fire. I think you’re one of the few over there that “get it”.

88

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
If you can’t see that, at present, Great Britain is operating as fascist government masquerading as a democracy then really Matthew 15:14 has come to pass…
[/quote]

And your point is??You do realise fascism is the antithesis of socialism yes?

89

[quote]wigsa wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
If you can’t see that, at present, Great Britain is operating as fascist government masquerading as a democracy then really Matthew 15:14 has come to pass…
[/quote]

And your point is??You do realise fascism is the antithesis of socialism yes?[/quote]

AHAHAHHAHAAAA!

91

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Alpha F, I’d just like to say I love you. :smiley:

Seriously, If I ever manage to save up enough money to take the trip I’ve been planning across the pond, I’d like to look you up and have a beer or something. I like your attitude and fire. I think you’re one of the few over there that “get it”.[/quote]

HEY!!!

92

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Alpha F, I’d just like to say I love you. :smiley:

Seriously, If I ever manage to save up enough money to take the trip I’ve been planning across the pond, I’d like to look you up and have a beer or something. I like your attitude and fire. I think you’re one of the few over there that “get it”.[/quote]

Thank you.

I am truly honored but I am now taken.

93

[quote]wigsa wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
If you can’t see that, at present, Great Britain is operating as fascist government masquerading as a democracy then really Matthew 15:14 has come to pass…
[/quote]

And your point is??You do realise fascism is the antithesis of socialism yes?[/quote]

And again:

The Fascis Siciliani were a Marxist split group at the turn of the 19th century that fought for land reform in Sicily.

The Fasci di Combattimenti, i.e. THE fascists, had no problem with Marxism either it is just that neither Mussolini nor Hitler saw a reason to socialice companies when they could socialice the people and that is what they did.

Furthermore, social democracy, aka “liberalism”, that was founded to bring socialism through democratic means does have one great hero, FDR. FDR administration however explicitly wanted to build a state modelled after Mussolinis Italy. They even included the Roman salute in the pledge of allegiance.

So, you really do not look much further than the labels, do you?

All of these ideologies are branches of the same illiberal, collectivist, manicheaic, gnostic and statist tree, offshoots of the leading political religion of the 20th century, socialism.