The long, trudging march of the Patient Protection andAffordable Care Act toward the U.S. Supreme Court is nearing theend, of the road, as court after court clash over theconstitutionality of the landmark legislation.

But there one's small problem. While the individual mandateclearly emerges as the point of judicial contention, someone forgotto tell the courts about the rest of the law. Because, while thelaw remains a legal and logistical mess, the PPACA without theindividual mandate is something altogether worse.

Several states – and some of the courts – have argued ratherconvincingly that this particular exercise of the Congressional“commerce clause” (the individual mandate) exceeds any historicinterpretation of this little-known Constitutional provision. Butany underwriter will tell you that compelling carriers to offercoverage to “everyone” without also mandating “everyone” purchasesaid coverage is as mathematically challenged a conceit as No ChildLeft Behind – Bush's landmark education law that forced newstandards and testing on the states without actually paying for anyof it.

But the experts argue that, in this case at least, the commerceclause oversteps its bounds because its compels one to do something– such as buying health insurance – rather than simply prohibitingan action.

(And while I agree this breaks somewhat new ground, it's notentirely unprecedented. A writer smarter than me points out thatshortly after the founding of our great republic, newly electedpresident George Washington signed into law the Militia Act, whichforced every (white) man to “provide himself with a good musket orfirelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and aknapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less thantwenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket orfirelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder andball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder horn,twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of apound of powder.” Call it reverse gun control, if you will. Theoriginal blog can be found here:http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/25/militia/index.html)

But leaving that little history lesson aside for a second, letme slide over to another one. It's widely accepted that theHeritage Foundation drafted the concept of the individual mandateway back in 1989 – well, at least they get the credit for it. Andfour years later, it made its way into not one, but two, separateGOP-sponsored health reform bills. And a bipartisan effort (backwhen we still had such things) emerged in as recently as 2007 withan individual mandate included in it, as well.

But Republicans such as Sens. Orrin Hatch and Kit Bond,once-vocal mandate supporters, aren't the only ones to switchsides. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama went on nationaltelevision to decry the individual mandate – ostensibly becauseprimary rival Hillary Clinton supported it.

Now, I don't bring this up to disparage Republicans or blamethem for the legal morass we find ourselves in now. The logic issimple. It's an all-or-nothing proposition. If you remove themandate – the focus of so much consternation – without alsoamputating the pre-existing condition clause, you make a bad law 10times worse. You can't have one without the other. And that's whythe mandate drew support from both parties early on, because thewhole thing falls apart like some kind of warped Jenga puzzle.

And there are those who argue that's exactly what the PPACAopponents are counting on. See, if the mandate – even by itself –is ruled unconstitutional, the law's lack of a severability clausewould invalidate the entire piece of legislation. It's a hell of agamble. If the court decides it can be severed, then the GOP willown this mess – just like Obama bought and paid for the stagnatingeconomy.

So all this posturing over the individual mandate is misguidedsince everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten about theequally damning pre-existing condition clause. It's as mysteriousas Jersey Shore ratings.