Its incredibly bad jurisprudence to think that one part of a Law being unconstitutional causes another part to be automatically unconstitutional. Off hand I can think of no real US case where a separable Law was struck when only half was unconstitutional. If I bothered to check I doubt I could find one. In this case you were lucky since the Act was non-separable because everything was dependent on people qualifying for the program of clause 1/3.
Most complicated US laws include in them a section named
Seperability that explicitly states that the various parts of it are to be considered seperable (or in rare cases that some parts ate seperable while others are not seperable.) It would seem like a real time and ink saver if the status of seperability was the default but that seems to not be the case under US law.
