Severability Clauses in legislation state that if some provisions of the law, or certain applications of those provisions, are found to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions, or the remaining applications of those provisions, will, nonetheless, continue in force as law. The Severability Clause usually states “notwithstanding any provision of this act being found unconstitutional, the rest of the act shall continue to be in force.”

It would seem that the writers of ObamaCare did not include this clause:

[A]pparently they did write ObamaCare without that, which means it operates by the old-fashioned default rule that if any part of a law is found to be unconstitutional, the entire law is unconstitutional. (If any one knows, please tell me why you figure they didn’t include this provision.)

Of course, this means that if the mandate is found unconstitutional, it’s not just that provision that is nullified, but the whole kit and kaboodle.

Oh. My. I was not really sure if challenging just the Individual Mandate would be worth it, because I assume that the rest of the law would still be in place. In this case however, I have enjoyed being proven wrong.

And you know, it isn’t just Ace of Spades. Others have noted that the Severability Clause is missing in ObamaCare. Don Surber notes this could be Obama’s Bobby Ewing Moment. Moe Lane says that the keyword for the 112th Congress will be Severability.

I don’t have a copy of ObamaCare or the “Fix” nor am I a lawyer, so someone needs to check this out. We need to know if this is true. The wording can be anything.

[Cross-Posted On Practical State.com]

BigGator5.net