Replies to post #588473 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Guido2]

Good point.

[obiterdictum]

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?

Willet did cite some precedent for striking an entire statute based upon a constitutional violation although his opinion was in dissent the precedent he cited in his opinion still has some standing.

Please provide the citation or citations for the precedents referring to inseverability and striking an entire statute.

SCOTUS may be able to answer the questions presented.

If the questions arise during deliberations, yes.