Failure to Include a Severability Clause in Obamacare a Blunder
RUSH: The left knows that this decision by Judge Vinson is serious. Last night on television, Jonathan Turley, George Washington University professor of law, was asked the following question: “Democrats made a mistake not writing that the bill is severable. Meaning if courts find bits of it unconstitutional, they can sever the bits from the law. Democrats insist it is implicit in this kind of law. Who is right?”
TURLEY: It was a colossal mistake not to have a severability clause. It’s a standard clause. It is not clear why it was kept out. It opened the door to allow a judge like Judge Vinson to strike the entire act. The Democrats really laid themselves open in how they drafted this act. Judge Vinson is not totally out of line in saying that severability was put at issue when they did not include the clause.
RUSH: Actually I think it’s kind of moot because the whole law was unworkable anyway without the mandate. You take the mandate away, the rest of the law falls by the wayside anyway in virtually every which way that they promised it and promoted it, but still they know it’s serious. Last night also on TV Representative Jim Moran from Virginia, discussion about the health care reform, got a question: “What’s your argument for why it is constitutional?” So the judge has ruled the bill unconstitutional. That’s it. So at MSNBC they go find a guy, “Tell us why you think it’s not. What’s your argument for why it is constitutional?” His argument doesn’t matter. Jim Moran has nothing to say. He is in the legislative branch. It doesn’t matter what his opinion is.