Oral arguments about the constitutionality of the individual healthcare mandate are being heard by the Supreme Court this week. The administration argues that the mandate is not severable from the law's other provisions which contravenes the Supreme Court's natural inclination to favor severability, meaning that if one part of the law is struck down, the rest of it remains intact. This is a risky "all or nothing" proposition because proponents for the law would probably rather see the rest of the law survive if it is ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional. However the question remains whether or not one provision can be excised from the law without making the entire thing untenable.
No comments:
Post a Comment