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
Medicaid Enrollment by Gender
Location———Male——Female
United States—41%——58%
See link for Kaiser’s state-by-state data.
Oh, sooo nobody is questioning Prof. Turley’s motives??? Oh, concern trolling is sooo last year. . .From the urban dictionary:
Examples, from above:
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
And Chip S., because you don’t know that many states don’t cover single males under Medicaid
I believe that Medicaid is a means tested eligibility that has nothing to do with your marital status or gender. There are additional programs for children however.
Medicaid provides insurance coverage for children and retirees in the United States. Its benefits vary slightly by state, though its eligibility requirements are federally mandated, allowing each person who meets the criteria the right to enroll in this insurance plan. An individual may enroll in Medicaid as long as he or she meets certain age and financial criteria, but a person’s marital status will in no way truncate his or her benefits.
Cute, Jackie. Point me to where Jay S said anything about single males.
Also show the the stats on uninsured single males. O/w, you’re just Grubering.
The once-comedian pre-Senator Al Franken had a book out called: “Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.
It was in Humor at the time.
Little did I know it should have been in the DIY section.
And Chip S., because you don’t know that many states don’t cover single males under Medicaid, “I’m not inclined to put much stock in your views about health-care policy” either.
The answer is pretty simple if your coverage is affected by this law suit(It is nice to see a new strawman just before Thanksgiving. It’s Traditional!). Just go to the emergency room and tell that your name is Pablo Escobar and that you are an illegal immigrant and you will get the best health care the United States has to offer.
Simply follow Obama’s prescription for medical care and the laws that supply it. Lie.
Chip, the left has to keep Grubering.
They can’t stop; it’s the only ammo they’ve got.
Jay S said…After all, if you are sick and too poor to afford insurance, you deserve your fate.
If you’ve never heard of Medicaid, I’m not inclined to put much stock in your views about health-care policy.
Chip S, My sentiments exactly. JT should get ready for attacks from the MSM and its slanted questions like Sharyl A. had to endure when she gave an interview to Chris Hayes at MSNBC.
I’m not sure if congratulations are in order, b/c I think this will prove to be a demanding and thankless task. But what is clearly in order is a very large “thank you”.
So everybody wants to step on everybody else’s toes and doesn’t recognize that they should confine themselves to their respective branches of authority. I think the Boehner House is perfectly happy to let President Obama overstep his bounds in the war powers area. JT seems to think it’s another case of Presidential overreach, so if JT is correct and Eric is wrong, the House Republicans are quite hypocritical in not persuing the war powers overreach, while going after the President’s overreach regarding the ACA. Scoundrels.
Observer,
I did understand Nancy’s comments.
swarthmoremom,
The Constitutional controversy with the War Powers Act goes the other way – infringement of the Legislature on Article II power.
SWM, yep. I think Boehner and his Republican House love wars and hate the idea of people having healthcare. Too bad that they’ve proven themselves to be such scoundrels.
Annie,
Article I v Article II. Domestic sphere v international sphere.
Annie, I don’t think Boehner is interested in pursuing any lawsuit about the war powers act. He is very much the hawk and pro NSA. .
Eric,
I’d love to hear JT argue a case regarding the Presidents’s overreach in the war powers area. It’s interesting that you think the President hasn’t overreached in this area, yet think he has regarding healthcare.
Professor Turley,
if your commentary is to be curtailed, but you still wish to provide in-depth updates to your readers, I suggest that you invite a likeminded colleague to provide us updates as a guest commentator whom you trust will speak with sufficient accuracy, depth, and accessibility to laymen, in your stead without attribution to you.
Eric, i think John Boehner is the one that limited the suit to the ACA.