Powered by TypePad

« Great Moments In Political Strategizing | Main | Well I'm Planning To Party Like Its 1994 »

October 19, 2010


Melinda Romanoff


Another failed image load.



Jane, I was composing my previous comment while you posted yours.

As I mentioned, without the clause the rest of the bill may not remain without the centerpiece individual mandate. But there's nothing that would logically prevent the rest of the law remaining, so if there were a severability clause, I think the court would defer to congress, despite the seeming impracticability.

Mark Folkestad

Pagar, thanks for the suggestion about Magic Jack. But I already use Skype with my computer. I will need a phone while I'm out fishing, hunting and mineral collecting, so I'm not going to be lugging my laptop around. Also, I will have internet service either through Starband satellite service or wireless broadband with AT&T or AP&T. It's a complicated situation, being so far out of the normal "wired world" circumstance. My cell phone use will not exceed a good contract, with the exception of calls that will fall outside of my unlimited minutes time frame. For calls during anytime minutes periods, I can use Skype from my homestead when possible. Our lifestyle will be fairly normal, with certain modifications. I do not intend to be without lights or TV or internet or phone service. I do not intend to be without nice hot showers, flush toilets and warmth. It will be a major adaptation trying to cope with the huge amounts of king, Dungeness and snow crab, shrimp, clams, abalone, scallops, mussels, deer, moose, grouse and other foods. I will whimper softly, grieving for the lack of cheap hot dogs and Spaghetios in my diet.


Janet--I would think that Barney spending that kind of money out of his pocket would hurt his financial bottom line.
In other words, I don't think he is a wealthy man but sure could have that wrong.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

I suspect he was probably "loaning" it to his campaign and will pay himself back out of his future campaign contributions, no?


Well there you go Ignatz. But what if he loses? I don't think anyone will take pity on the guy and bail him out of his campaign debt.


Jane: I've had a tough day and I'm really tired, so forgive me, but isn't it exactly the opposite? Isn't it supposed to say that if one part of the statute fails it all should fail?

Jane, I'm not sure if my mistyping of valid for invalid caused some confusion (as well it might), but a severability clause says that if any part of the statute is found to be invalid, that part can be removed without invalidating the other parts of the statute.

Also, regarding your comment, "Why have a severability clause at all if someone gets to pretend it means nothing?", I noticed that the author of the law review article I linked to earlier tends toward the view that courts do more or less treat severability clauses as though they mean nothing, by applying essentially the same severability analysis whether or not a bill contains a severability clause.


Here is a Link for finding out how much money Barney Franks or any other incumbent has, at least according to the documents they are required to file.

My impression is that Barney Franks has the first dollar the taxpayers gave him and just adds to it.

Rob Crawford

Folks who find it really frustrating when survey questions aren't tailored to the answers they would like to give are actually a demographic in their own right. There are a lot of tests which purposely require you to make uncomfortable choices.

I'd say that tests purporting to measure political alignment that do not let you apply the same standard to their questions in the test that you would apply to those same questions in real life are no longer measuring political alignment. I suggest they are herding test-takers towards a particular result.


Nah, don't fall into arguing over the gov't position that you cannot opt out of healthcare. Hit them frontally.
The gov't says a citizen choosing NOT to purchase a healthcare policy is an ACTIVE decision, and since nobody can opt out of the healthcare market this ACTIVE decision means there is commerce clause authority to compel you to participate, so as to keep the health care system viable.
Similarly, a citizen choosing NOT to have children is an ACTIVE decision, and since nobody can opt out of the social security system this ACTIVE decision means there is commerce clause authority to compel you to have a baby, so as to keep the social security system viable.
Hows your argument over the scope of Congress' powers looking now, Mr. Gershengorn?

The comments to this entry are closed.