So, here's the background:
After the ACA was originally passed 2010, it was challenged on constitutional grounds. It went to SCOTUS in 2012 (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012). In that case the court ruled in a 5-4 opinion that the Individual Mandate was a constitutional and valid use of Congress' taxation powers. The law survived the constitutional challenge.
In 2017 a subsequent (now GOP controlled congress) zeroed out the individual mandate penalty.
The individual mandate is now being challenged on constitutional grounds. The logic goes that, since there is no penalty there is no taxation. If there is no taxation, the individual mandate cannot be a constitutional under Congress' taxation powers. I'm fine with all of that.
Here's now the part that I find absurd:
The argument that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the ACA based on the way it was amended by the 2017 Congress. Therefore, since the IM is no longer constitutional the entire ACA must fall.
The reason I find it absurd is it relies on speech and debate from the original passage of the ACA which argued that the individual mandate was required for the law to function. However, a subsequent congress deliberately chose to zero out the individual mandate without eliminating the law. The subsequent congress' decision making overrides the decision that the congress that passed the ACA. The 2017 Congress very deliberately made the individual mandate completely nonfunctional, while leaving the rest of the law in place.
TL;DR
- 2010 Congress passes the ACA with the Individual Mandate
- 2012 SCOTUS rules it constitutional
- 2017 Congress zeroes out the Individual Mandate
- The argument now is that the 2010 Congress thought the ACA required the IM to function, ignoring that the 2017 Congress very obviously decided that the ACA didn't require the IM to function.
To me there's just no way to square that circle. The 2017 Congress' decision overrides the 2010 Congress' decision.
-----
Finally, logically I agree with you and I agree with the 2010 Congress. The Individual Mandate is necessary for the ACA to function the way it was originally designed. The ACA is a better, more functional, law with the individual mandate in place. I disagreed with the 2017 Congress' decision to remove the mandate.
But that's no longer relevant. The question now is, is the IM necessary for the ACA to function the way the 2017 Congress amended it to function. The answer—since they repealed the individual mandate—is clearly "no".