As many on this blog are aware, I have previously testified, written, and litigated in opposition to the rise of executive power and the countervailing decline in congressional power in our tripartite system. I have also spent years encouraging Congress, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, to more actively defend its authority, including seeking judicial review in separation of powers conflicts. For that reason, it may come as little surprise this morning that I have agreed to represent the United States House of Representatives in its challenge of unilateral, unconstitutional actions taken by the Obama Administration with respect to implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is an honor to represent the institution in this historic lawsuit and to work with the talented staff of the House General Counsel’s Office. As in the past, this posting is meant to be transparent about my representation as well as my need to be circumspect about my comments in the future on related stories.
On July 30, 2014, the House of Representatives adopted, by a vote of 225-201, H. Res. 676, which provided that
the Speaker is authorized to initiate or intervene in one or more civil actions on behalf of the House of Representatives in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction to seek any appropriate relief regarding the failure of the President, the head of any department or agency, or any other officer or employee of the executive branch, to act in a manner consistent with that official’s duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States with respect to implementation of any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, title I or subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including any amendment made by such provision, or any other related provision of law, including a failure to implement any such provision.
I have previously testified that I believe that judicial review is needed to rebalance the powers of the branches in our system after years of erosion of legislative authority. Clearly, some take the view of a fait accompli in this fundamental change in our constitutional system. This resignation over the dominance of the Executive Branch is the subject of much of my recent academic writings, including two forthcoming works. For that reason, to quote the movie Jerry Maguire, the House “had me at hello” in seeking a ruling to reinforce the line of authority between the branches.
As many on this blog know, I support national health care and voted for President Obama in his first presidential campaign. However, as I have often stressed before Congress, in the Madisonian system it is as important how you do something as what you do. And, the Executive is barred from usurping the Legislative Branch’s Article I powers, no matter how politically attractive or expedient it is to do so. Unilateral, unchecked Executive action is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in our constitutional system. This case represents a long-overdue effort by Congress to resolve fundamental Separation of Powers issues. In that sense, it has more to do with constitutional law than health care law. Without judicial review of unconstitutional actions by the Executive, the trend toward a dominant presidential model of government will continue in this country in direct conflict with the original design and guarantees of our Constitution. Our constitutional system as a whole (as well as our political system) would benefit greatly by courts reinforcing the lines of separation between the respective branches.
After I testified earlier on this lawsuit, I was asked by some House Members and reporters if I would represent the House and I stated that I could not. That position had nothing to do with the merits of such a lawsuit. At that time, in addition to my other litigation obligations, I had a national security case going to trial and another trial case in Utah. Recently, we prevailed in both of those cases. Subsequently, the House General Counsel’s Office contacted me about potentially representing House. With the two recent successes, I was able to take on the representation.
It is a great honor to represent the House of Representatives. We are prepared to litigate this matter as far as necessary. The question presented by this lawsuit is whether we will live in a system of shared and equal powers, as required by our Constitution, or whether we will continue to see the rise of a dominant Executive with sweeping unilateral powers. That is a question worthy of review and resolution in our federal courts.
Jonathan Turley
Then there is failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
Then there is conflict of interest. The Supreme Court and every federal judge in America has been granted a free medical care ride by Congress. The House is going to ask the Judges to stop the President from extending medical care to other Americans. If the Judges don’t do so then Congress will begin limiting the Judges’ free medical care. It will get ugly.
Off to bed too much excitement for me, will say a fervent prayer for a Hillary ‘conversion’, lol!
Maybe if we shut our eyes tight and click our heels three times, Hillary will magically become a Republican?!
I do think that it is important to have the balance of power restored. However, I do not blame Obama for anything, one can do only what one is capable of doing. My problem is with Republicans. They first chose McCain, who was singing about bombing Iran and scared away half of the independents , and then they chose Romney who failed to even get the party base to vote for him. If they do not choose a strong candidate this time then they will have to deal with another Clinton in the white house, meaning another 4 years of feeling annoyed and frustrated.
Oops I think I hit a nerve. Squeeky, you mad?
But I bet she did make an interesting video about why she wasn’t voting for Obama, seems like something she might do.
Annie,
Gee, Sister Annie, every time any thing religious or Republican pops up you weigh in like an obsessed cobra spewing venom and slobber everywhere. And bitter ??? My goodness, you are in your 60’s and have never voted for a Republican one single time in your life in any election, and you priss around like you are the epitome of an open minded and tolerant person??? How does somebody go through life and NEVER vote for anybody but a Democrat and then have the nerve to pretend that they are open-minded and reasonable??? My goodness but you are beyond bitter— you are a hate-filled fundamentalist extremist. Maybe you should consider an exorcism??? I just saw this movie about some Hellbound Saints who could maybe do a non-traditional exorcism for you???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vojTkks9_3k
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Sandi, Squeeky never appeared on MSNBC.
Sandi, I’m not defending the ACA, I never did, I’ve said this many times now. I’ve also said I don’t doubt Professor Turley’s motives, but I sure do doubt the Republcan House’s motives. They suffer from the same malady, bitterness over losing two national elections.
Annie, there was no bitterness the first time. We didn’t have anyone ready and knew McCain couldn’t win. I actually think Sarah helped him. The hatred spread about Romney by the Democrats was untrue and ugly. The stupidity of the American people to reelect Obama was frustrating. Romney was right on so many things and look what a mess we’re in now. Congress will try to get back to law and order. As they should. We have three branches of government. Harry Reid is responsible for the animosity. 300+ bills from the House on his desk that he didn’t even send to committee. That is ungentlemanly and not in line with the auspicious deliberative body. It brought the Senate into the gutter.
Obama was a citizen because his mother was. The birth certificate was nonsense. Annie, MSNBC is full of nut cases.
Annie, the government shutdown achieved one thing, suddenly Americans began checking out ACA and learned the truth. Obama was complicit in the shutdown by refusing to meet with Congress, which is what he is supposed to do. That is what Professor Turley is bringing to the court. The President cannot change laws. He must go through Congress. There are 3 branches of government!
Yes Olly, how long did it take Squeeky to figure out Obama was a citizen, in years, lol! She is very perceptive, indeed.
Squeeky with the quality over quantity….again! You are a very perceptive woman. 😉
PUMAs are still true believers in Hillary. That’s sadly sweet.
And maybe you can convince everyone here that she’s a Republican.
And Squeeky you are bitter, bitter, bitter. Maybe your goddess Hillary will have her chance at last in 2016.
Paul, Hillary is pro choice, Squeeky is not. It’s not her uterus talking, it’s the bitterness over the defeat of Hillary in 2008 that is talking. Look up PUMA.
🙂
@Annie
Well, Sister Annie, fundamentalist extremism takes many forms and is not something restricted to religion. People go off the deep end on a lot of things, and you appear to have dived, head first, into Democratic Party partisanship. I guess that is kind of like baptism. . .I sure hope for your sake the Democrats don’t start expecting their true believers to handles snakes or stuff like that.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
With the cause of Birthers
Going on before.