Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

While there is no law that I am aware of that mandates that a statute absent a severability clause is toast if one or more provisions of that statute are found unconstitutional. There is legal precedent that supports what a remedy should be. Willet cited a few examples of such in his dissent.

The message to Barron4664 was not directly related to the prospective and desired retrospective remedies given for Count IV of Collins et. al. complaint. That is, the dialogue was not about 5th Circuit US Court of Appeals en banc's majority opinion and ruling for a prospective remedy or the minority dissenting opinion concerning remedies following the en banc declarations that the single-director structure of the FHFA is unconstitutional.

The dialogue was about how SCOTUS would/could rule on the severability/inseverability of an unconstitutional provision(s) of a statute (HERA 2008).

The dialogue was concerned with the possible invalidation of the entire statute (HERA 2008) on the account that the the single-director structure of the FHFA that is primarily based on the limiting and unconstitutional removal “for cause” provision (See 12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4512) may be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

See p. 60 - https://bit.ly/2qoSFB5

The issues are: If SCOTUS rules that 12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) is unconstitutional, does it follow that the entire statute - (HERA) - which does not have a severability clause, will be invalidated ("toast")? Can 12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) be severed from the statute without affecting the remaining parts of the statute?