Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[clarencebeaks21]

Quote: “…must review HERA in toto”

Why? Ipso fatso, Archie Bunker? Next time cite authority. It’s law, not witchcraft.

Because “[t]he unconstitutionality of a part of an Act does not necessarily defeat or affect the validity of its re- maining provisions,” Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Okla., 286 U. S. 210, 234, the “normal rule” is “that partial . . . invalidation is the required course,” Brocket v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U. S. 491, 504.

Quote: “…the court Cannot review provision by provision…”

False. See Collins. See Seila. See, oh, the last 30 years of separation of powers law:

“The tenure provisions are severable
from the remainder of the statute. The
consequence is that the Board may
continue to function as before, but its
members may be
removed at will by the Commission.”

Free Enterprise Fund v PCAOB
610 US ___ Pp. 27–29.

So while I echo your tag line (I too “hope this helps”) I also cannot help but add a caveat from ol’ Yogi Berra: ‘You can hear a lot by listening’.