COLUMBIA, S.C. - South Carolina Supreme Court justices heard arguments Thursday on the constitutionality of legislation that began as a research and economic development measure, but ended up including at least 15 other subjects.

The state Constitution requires bills to deal with just one subject. The Life Sciences Act, passed by the General Assembly in March, originally was intended to give broader incentives to pharmaceutical companies. But lawmakers tacked on a number of amendments.

There are three sides to the issue. Justices will have to decide whether the act is completely unconstitutional, partly constitutional or completely constitutional.

Greenville native and government watchdog Edward Sloan Jr. - who filed the lawsuit - says the entire act is unconstitutional.

Sloan, who has become known for suing government agencies, last year lost a lawsuit that argued Gov. Mark Sanford could not simultaneously serve as governor and hold a commission in the U.S. Air Force Reserve.

The governor had threatened to sue lawmakers himself, but later backed off. Instead, he vetoed the bill, but lawmakers overrode his veto.

General Assembly lawyer Michael Hitchcock argued that Sloan does not have standing to bring such a case, since he is not directly harmed by the legislation.

Chief Justice Jean Toal said the court does not like to step into legislative matters, but the case was one of public importance.

"Mr. Sloan is saying that the Constitution means something," Toal said.

Jim Carpenter, Sloan's attorney, said the act contains at least 15 different subjects.

"The Constitution says every act shall relate to but one subject and that shall be expressed in the title," he said.

"We're supposed to at least give enough deference to the other branch to construe this constitutional provision broadly," Toal said.

Carpenter said the provision is needed to ensure that legislation is supported by the majority. The only thing that ties the act together is a desire to get a number of items passed, he said.

Legislators say the entire act is constitutional and that General Assembly rules permit them to tie issues together as they see fit.

"Every piece is germane to job development in a knowledge-based economy," Hitchcock said. The act deals with expanding educational opportunities to create an educated work force and providing incentives to make South Carolina attractive to high-tech companies, he said.

State Attorney General Henry McMaster, taking the unusual position of arguing the case himself before the justices, said some parts of the bill are constitutional, others are not.

Three issues - creating incentives for pharmaceutical and medical companies to locate in the state, establishing provisions for a venture capital fund and a bond to allow for construction of research facilities at the University of South Carolina, Clemson University and the Medical University of South Carolina - are related economic development issues and therefore germane, he said.

The rest of the issues - including a plan to make the University of South Carolina Sumter a four-year institution, to investigate the feasibility of a law school for South Carolina State University, and to create a four-year culinary program at Trident Technical College in Charleston - are unrelated and unconstitutional, he said.

McMaster cited a severability clause in the act that says any part of the act determined to be unconstitutional can be removed, while keeping the rest of the act intact.

"We don't think these words are empty," McMaster said. "The Legislature meant something."

But the dilemma in this case is determining what parts are OK and what could be removed, Toal said.

The justices will rule on the issue sometime later.