unconstitutional is a determination that the scheme or statute is invalid, void, and unenforceable. Funk v. Rent-All Mart, Inc. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 78, 79-80, 742 N.E.2d 127; see also State ex rel. Maurer v. Sheward (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 513, 523, 644 N.E.2d 369. But a holding that a scheme or statute is unconstitutional does not and cannot remove the offending statutes or statute from the Revised Code. Removal of statutes from the Revised Code can be achieved only through repeal. {¶ 46} A holding that an unconstitutional statute or statutory provision is subject to severance does nothing more than state that a statute within a multistatute scheme or a section of a multipart statute is invalid, void, and unenforceable. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, ¶ 66 (<HOLDING>). Severance is merely a judicially imposed
recognizing that the two statutes are nearly identical holding that two statutes that are part of the general assemblys adam walsh act are unconstitutional and are severed and that after severance they may not be enforced holding that arguments that are not raised or that are not accompanied by factual and legal support are deemed waived holding these two statutes are not criminal offenses and only affect sentencing holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined