HOUSE FILES CHALLENGE OVER THE CHANGES TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Today, we filed our complaint United States House of Representatives v. Burwell (Case 1:14-cv-01967), in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The House’s complaint contains eight counts concerning constitutional and statutory violations of law related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). There are a myriad of unilateral amendments to this Act, ordered by President Obama’s Administration, which could be the subject of a challenge, and there are a number of changes that are already being litigated, including King v. Burwell, which has been accepted by the Supreme Court for review. The House’s complaint, however, focuses on the Administration’s usurpation not only of the House’s Article I legislative authority, but also of the defining “power of purse.” Both of these powers were placed exclusively in Article I by the Framers of our Constitution. These constitutional and statutory claims are highly illustrative of the current conflict between the branches over the basic principles of the separation of powers. The House’s complaint seeks to reaffirm the clear constitutional lines of separation between the branches – a doctrine that is the very foundation of our constitutional system of government. To put it simply, the complaint focuses on the means rather than ends. The complaint is posted below.

This is not a new question. Indeed, in some respects, it is the original question. The Framers were well aware that governmental actors would seek to aggrandize power within the system the Framers had created. In Federalist 51, James Madison warned that “[i]n framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Accordingly, the Framers put into place what Madison called “the necessity of auxiliary precautions” to maintain the balance of powers within the system. Such precautions are of little value absent judicial review to maintain the lines of separation; to arrest what Madison called the “encroaching nature” of power.

Once again, as lead counsel, I have to remain circumspect in any public statements on the filing in deference to the Court and the legal process.

Jonathan Turley

Here is the Complaint: House v. Burwell (D.D.C.) – Complaint (FILED)

419 thoughts on “HOUSE FILES CHALLENGE OVER THE CHANGES TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT”

1. I’m rooting for you, Professor Turley!

Thank you for representing the people. It takes guts to stand up to rising tyrant.

2. Trooper York says:

Good luck Professor. Stay strong and protect the Constitution!

3. William Hefner says:

I applaud this action.

4. BarkinDog says:

The defense will be mused about in terms of Stand Your Ground discussions. Who stands on two whole feet? The President does. FDR did not. Nixon had his problems but Congress chose to impeach him not sue him. The legislature is made up of many members and not all stand together on the law suit. The Supreme Court consists of Nine and all do not agree. For the Court and the Congress to tell the President what to do is a violation of the Separation of Powers. These are Powers not Rights. Congress has a remedy. Impeachment.

5. Jim says:

Millions of American citizens are relying on the Affordable Care Act for healthcare they could not get before the act was passed.

6. ICore says:

I am going to be watching this with interest Professor; regardless of your political affiliation, everyone should be very concerned at the power grab that is being undertaken by the executive branch of the government. We are a republic that would be stronger with the proper administration of the division of powers as envisioned by the framers of our constitution.

7. Paul C. Schulte says:

Hopefully this will bring down the “stupid” people who voted for Obamacare.

8. Well said ICore. Thank you for defending the Constitution, Professor.

9. Go get em Counselor. Thank you for believing in the laws of our nation instead of the antics of a political party headed by the divisive self proclaimed King Obama. May God keep you safe and steady your hand & head, as you fight for the rights of our Constitution.

10. Barry says:

Are u going to file one re Immigration Sent from XFINITY Connect Mobile App

11. Trooper York says:

Can you amend it to include the immigration mess we got hit with yesterday?

12. swarthmoremom says:

Maybe they will impeach over the immigration one.

13. PS: The volume of your character far outweighs, your past of liberal indiscretions.😉

14. swarthmoremom says:

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), one of the most outspoken opponents of immigration reform in the House of Representatives, isn’t quite sure on what specific grounds President Barack Obama would be impeached over his planned executive action on immigration, but thinks Obama will be impeached nonetheless.

“At some point, you have to evaluate whether the president’s conduct aids or abets, encourages, or entices foreigners to unlawfully cross into the United States,” Brooks said in an interview with Slate. “That has a five-year in-jail penalty associated with it.”

15. John K McGrane says:

Happy to see you take up the cudgels on behalf of the House !!

16. Inga says:

Did Professor Turley turn into a conservative Jettexas? I believe he continues to hold liberal views on many issues. I doubt he considers them “indiscretions”.

17. swarthmoremom says:

Inga, I don’t know. Texas could be right…….. In any case this blog is no place for a librul or progressive or Saul Alinsky follower.:)

18. “For the Court and the Congress to tell the President what to do is a violation of the Separation of Powers.”

Barkindog,
Obama has stated:

“To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

The constitution is what tells the President what he can do and I believe this lawsuit is to put a halt to Executive branch overreach. The negative liberties are intended to force our government NOT to do things and it’s pathetic we have a large percentage of people that still believe this government does not do enough.

19. Inga says:

SWM, so it seems.

20. Re “negative liberties”: The negation of a negative thing is a positive thing.

What are called “negative liberties” are the means by which liberty is protected.

21. issac says:

Hypocrisy wields the law. The blindness of justice is a double edged sword. Leading up to the ‘travesty’ of justice performed by Obama in delaying the application of certain aspects of the ACA, primarily those regarding small businesses was a similar outcry from those hypocrites that call themselves today, defenders of American Justice. Obama was criticized daily for jamming the changes down the throats of American small business. The President listened to the people, something he has done far more than the previous administration, and delayed the application of this hardship for a year. So, immediately after adjusting the ACA due to the complaints of the republican opposition, that same republican opposition proceeds to sue him for doing what they asked. WTF.

These issues of executive actions being legal or not legal hide the basic hypocrisy of the republican party and its adept use of the ‘blind’ justice system. Justice is a tool created by moral man, not the other way around. Just like religion, created by man, god created by man, it can be used to defend the side that spouts it.

Scratch a little and sniff. The judicial arguments of the republicans stink here, to high heaven, another thing invented by man.

There comes a time when vacuous minds can be filled with just about anything, unfortunately not what really counts, morality and ethics.

22. I work in the medical field and am thrilled at this action.

We either operate under a Constitution or we do not.
Either we are a nation of laws or we are a nation of men.

This lawsuit is important and needed.
The fate of the nation hangs in the balance: Constitutional Republic, or Banana republic?

23. Tony says:

I was prepared not to like you when I read the GOP hired you to sue the president, not that I particularly care for him, I figured you would be another Political Hack I try to avoid listening to when I accidentally land on Fox news while channel surfing or endure when visiting my mother. But I read your Wikipedia article and you actually appear to be more concerned with the law than partisanship, it will be interesting to see what you come up with. I think litigation to curb School bullying is brilliant.

24. A: “Hey, I’ve got an idea! Three, in fact. I think they should be packaged into one law.”

B: “Two of your ideas stink. I’m against your law.”

A: “Just pass it now, and trust me to fix it later.”

B: “That’s a terrible way to govern.”

A: “I postponed one of the things you don’t like until after the next election.”

B: “That’s a terrible way to govern.”

Isaac: “Hypocrite!”

There’s a big non sequitur in there somewhere.

25. @Inga. . . that’s what is so great about Turley taking this case & you take my comment to literally, it was a joke!

26. Marc says:

Ok, so stupid question regarding the immigration reform Obama is forcing on us (just keep in mind I’m no lawyer)….My wife is an immigrant from Ecuador. She came over on a K-1 visa, and I sponsored her. Between the two of us, we spent thousands of dollars, countless hours, went to numerous interviews, she had two physicals, and we jumped through all of the hoops just to make sure we followed the laws to get her here legally. Can people like us who followed the immigration laws file a lawsuit against Obama? Like I said, I’m no lawyer, but it’s an insult to us at least and illegal at the most. If I had a case, I would seriously consider filing a lawsuit to recover the money we spent.

27. Inga says:

Tex, no I think you were quite serious.

28. Dotingly your student says:

I am student of yours Professor Turley and hold you in very high regard and to even higher standards. I have some idea of your views and I do not think they are out of harmony with Obama’s. I completely agree with your statement “[t]o put it simply, the complaint focuses on the means rather than ends.” Nonetheless, I must express a little disappointment with your means. A law professor has much better ways to articulate his views.

With respect to the legitimacy of Obama’s actions, I would not be surprised if they are unconstitutional. Boehner on the other hand is a person who continously strikes below the belt and is an emotional buffoon. I do not see how this is going to turn out well for you.

29. Inga says:

I’m an immigrant Marc and I don’t consider it an insult at all. You don’t speak for all immigrants, neither do I.

30. @Inga. . . it doesn’t matter what you think, my comment wasn’t directed at you. Please unmention me and refrain from further directives at me. I will not address you further.

31. “This case addresses fundamental issues regarding the limits of Executive power under our constitutional form of government, and the continued viability of the separation of powers doctrine upon which “the whole American fabric has been erected.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 176 (1803). This lawsuit thus raises issues of exceptional importance, not only to plaintiff United States House of Representatives, but also to the entire nation”.

Mr. Turley’s case is strictly a Constitutional matter and the unlawful actions of a out of control President who continues to overstep his Presidential powers. He has been wrist slapped three times by the United Stats Supreme Court already.

Next the Unconstitutional Amnesty Executive Order by Proxy!

32. Inga says:

Nope, not gonna happen Tex. That’s not how things work here. There are several people whom I wish wouldn’t address me, but they still do. You have the right not to respond to me.

33. @Marc . . . my son in law’s parents are immigrants as well and spent enormous amounts of money to become legal citizens. They did it right and they appreciate their citizenship. They have the same issue as you.

34. @MsJet

Inga is a rabid Democrat sooo she doesn’t care what somebody wants. She just does whatever she can get away with, like Obama and the rest of the party. On top of that, she is a Yankee.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

35. Inga says:

I “appreciate” my “citizenship” too, my naturalization certificate with my nine year old child like signature is one of my most prized possessions. My parents became proud citizens as soon as they could, six years after we arrived. Many of the kids in my and my sibling’s family are military members and all are patriotic Americans.

36. greatgrey says:

Standing, you ain’t got it Jon.

37. Good for you and the country. Right now, as the immigration unilateral action shows, the federal government is broken. We have a rouge executive, and the courts need to go on the record as to whether it meets with their approval.

38. issac says:

chip s

Who has the gold makes the rules. The question is who do you want to have the gold? Those that lie, break the laws, hold America hostage until they get what they want, obstruct the very government they were elected to protect, serve, and function, for the gaining of political power only, now ask yourself who is the hypocrite. The hypocrisy is not only found in contesting laws, it is found in abandoning the best interests of the people.

Also, it has yet to be determined if Obama broke any laws. The very position taken by Turley and the republicans goes against what they have sworn to uphold. Look up hypocrisy in the dictionary, take a look at republican activities for the past dozen or so years, and then use the word.

The republican party performed a slow motion, coup d’etat on the government over six years, calling into question everything Obama did, regardless of whether they believed in it or not. The pursuit of power can perversely use the position of justice and still undermine the best interests of the country.

Take off the blinders Chip.

39. Jim22 says:

Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter, “On top of that, she is a Yankee.”

Hey, I resemble that comment!

40. Jay S says:

Professor Turley has become a willing pawn in the Republican plan to further discredit and perhaps oust Obama. Will they be happy if they can get him out in the fields, picking cotton?

All this high-minded talk of separation of powers is just a smoke screen for what is really going on. I am deeply ashamed that Turley has been pulled in to this attempt to nullify the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.

41. Nick Spinelli says:

Being a subscriber to PACER, myself and my lovely bride will follow the case closely. I slam the govt. a lot because well, it deserves being slammed a lot. But, when warranted, I praise. PACER started poorly. It is the Federal online court record system. But, they hired some good PRIVATE sector geeks and they have turned PACER into an efficient system. Some of the state and local online websites are joke.

What folks tend to forget is that while JT is liberal, he is a libertarian. He understands, certainly better than any of us commenters, the Constitutional principles that SHOULD govern this country. At great risk, JT has spoken out against this renegade, Chicago style, administration. Being from Chicago, JT understands the corruption of Chicago politics. I am certain JT will have friends turn their back on him just as Christopher Hitchens did when he supported the war in Iraq. It was a real eye opener for Hitchens and I am certain it is for JT.

Many folks have been drawn here by JT’s integrity and courage. Some have left because of it. Some remain and whine about it. C’est la vie.

42. swarthmoremom says:

Jay S

“Professor Turley has become a willing pawn in the Republican plan to further discredit and perhaps oust Obama. Will they be happy if they can get him out in the fields, picking cotton?

All this high-minded talk of separation of powers is just a smoke screen for what is really going on. I am deeply ashamed that Turley has been pulled in to this attempt to nullify the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.” Well, one of those house republicans that is suing said he would like to put Obama in jail. He is from Alabama so maybe he has plans to put him in one of those horrific prisons.

43. Nick Spinelli says:

ChipS, Isaac pontificated about Wayne Gretzky yesterday, believing he was a defenseman. He tried to sound knowledgeable but we all laughed @ that. I would not waste much time w/ him.

44. @NickS

I wonder if the Pope can beatify Obama??? That way all the Obama toadies here can do their worship up in style! You know, lighting candles, and praying for intercession, and miracles and stuff. Plus, they could get little plastic Obama-in-robes-with-a-halo figurines to put on their dashboards.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

45. Nick Spinelli says:

Yeah, JT is a rube, right SWM?? You folks are the rubes. You are the “stupid” ones Gruber spoke about.

46. Nick Spinelli says:

Squeeky, We need a confirmed miracle for beatification. Maybe he can walk across the Rio Grande and carry illegal children on his back.

47. Darren Smith says:

Do the federal rules of appeal, if they are called that, have a provision where a US District Court could make a ruling and then certify it for direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court?

We have such as provision in our state’s court system.

48. “Yeah, JT is a rube, right SWM?? You folks are the rubes. You are the “stupid” ones Gruber spoke about.”

Spot on! May I add, not once, but twice in 2008 and 2012.

49. swarthmoremom says:

Yeah, JT is a rube, right SWM?? You folks are the rubes. You are the “stupid” ones Gruber spoke about.” nick Never called anyone a “rube” but you did. One is known in politics by the company one keeps that is all I am saying, but at the same time a lawyer is a hired gun so there is that.

50. Those that lie, break the laws, hold America hostage until they get what they want, obstruct the very government they were elected to protect, serve, and function, for the gaining of political power only, now ask yourself who is the hypocrite…

Based on this, isaac, I’d say it’s obvious that Obama–who campaigned on a platform of reining in the imperial presidency–is the hypocrite.

The rest of your last comment makes sense if and only if you are confident that your view of what “the people” want is a more accurate view than that of their elected representatives.

51. Inga says:

JT voted for Obama in 2008.

52. issac says:

Spinelli

You had me going there for a moment when I read your 1:50 post, some good points, points that might have been made with a full deck. Then I read your 1:55 and subsequent, (that means following) posts. This supports that old adage (saying in a metaphorical term) that one should stop while one is not so far behind.

53. Nick Spinelli says:

Was Sandy Koufax a catcher?

54. issac says:

Chip S

Politicians campaign on goals. Goals are directions rarely achieved. As far as what the people want, polls show that they want: universal health insurance, the government to halt obstructionist acts, their representatives to not cave in to special interests, politicians to work together, etc.

Since Obama was sworn it, the republican party has designed ALL of their actions around getting him out. This started before Obama did anything. It has been proven consistently over these past six years that a combination of chaos through obstruction concurrent with finger pointing supports that old adage, “If you say a lie often enough, people will believe it.” Coupled with a tried and true oppressive move of first creating chaos and then saying, often enough, that it is the fault of the other guy and only you can solve the problem, this makes for a tried and true formula. Not very democratic and intelligent though.

The real question that should be asked is how much of all this stuff does the average person/voter really understand and how much is the result of relentless media hype? Read up a little on your history. Some of these formulas are the same ones used by terrorists.

55. issac says:

Slip sliding away down the drain. Doesn’t have a dictionary.

56. Mike Barfield says:

Interesting that there is only a request for injunctive relief in certain counts. Seems to cut against all of the grandiose structural and separation of powers arguments…

57. Dust Bunny Queen says:

Since Obama was sworn it, the republican party has designed ALL of their actions around getting him out

Well……DUH. This is how political party systems work. The ones out of power do their best to get the ones IN power OUT. Always. This is the way of the world. What part of this do you not get?

58. Thank you for your efforts to protect the US Constitution from abusers of every political stripe.

59. Nick Spinelli says:

ChipS is one of the most knowledgeable people I have encountered on any blog. He is reasoned, logical, and civil. ChipS is maybe the best commenters on economics of anyone on any blog I’ve read. When someone tells him to “read up on a little history” combined w/ “Gretzky was a defenseman” the saying “The first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging.” You have some potential as a commenter, Isaac. But, you need to get that chip off your shoulder and put on your big boy pants.

60. Nick Spinelli says:

DBQ, Some beatified Obama in 2008 and expected all to genuflect, like the cultists always do. It is fascinating and disgusting to watch.

61. Since Bush was sworn it, the democratic party has designed ALL of their actions around getting him out.

@Dust Bunny Queen. . . you are absolutely right. Goes both ways.

62. @DBQ

In Isaac’s defense, he simply does not have the mental ability to understand what is going on. He is a Democrat. Therefore, to him there is no general principle that governs how parties out of power try to get back in, or slow down the party in power. To him, with his Democratic mindset, it all depends on which party is doing it. Sooo, if the Democrats obstruct, then that is good. If the Republicans obstruct, then that is bad.

Like I have said before:

Trying to explain right vs.wrong to a Democrat, is like trying to explain to a bad, cheating, folding-chair using, pants-pulling-down wrestler why he didn’t win the WWF Belt fairly. He is not able to understand what you are going on about. All he knows is, he won the match and belt, and if his girl friend jumped into the ring and whacked the good wrestler over the head with a chair while the referee wasn’t looking- – -well, what difference does that make??? After all, he has the belt. Isn’t that all that matters???

This is why Obama is able to make speech after speech about how he doesn’t have the power to change immigration law on his own, and then all of a sudden he has a tantrum, and now he has the power. This is why his own party doesn’t see anything curious about this. They are sociopathic-like in that principles are a foreign concept to them.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

63. Randy Dunn says:

I am shocked and extremely disappointed that Turley has deemed it appropriate to waste taxpayer money on Congress’ next and latest effort to smear Obama. Why is Turley taking money to litigate a matter that the Republicans tried and failed over 50 times to overturn through the political arena? And I don’t buy the argument that Turley has to bring this lawsuit to rein in the executive. Where was Turley when Bush lied to start a war? Where was Turley when Bush and Chaney committed torture, clearly in violation of international treaty and U.S. law, and then bragged about it?

64. Randy is shocked shocked that a libertarian constitutional legal scholar is going on and on about Obamacare not following the law.

Shocked!!1!

65. “Was Sandy Koufax a catcher?”

That’s the rumor.

He definitely got hit in face with more balls than Yogi Berra. Just sayn’

66. Every day here is a refresher on logical fallacies:

Tu quoque Latin for “you, too” or “you, also”) or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to dismiss the opponent’s position based on criticism of the opponent’s inconsistency and not the position presented. It is a special case of ad hominem fallacy. (Wiki)

67. Well, I must say this is one THE most divisive thing Prof JT has done, in regard to his bloggersphere.
(Next to the little rowe that happened in Jan 2014, where many of his left-leaning readers felt he was taking political sides in the ad hominem wars.)

Because he was critical of Bush, he won over many progressive minds who considered him a fellow compat politically.
But then when we was as critical (and dare I say more so) of Obama, people started to wonder if he was truly left leaning at all.
Now he has taken on the mantle for a full on frontal attack upon Obama, incidentally and necessarily siding with Repubs.
That operational, even though not political, allegiance has confused many of his progressive readers, and is likely a sin that will not be forgiven irrespective of its more fundamental Constitutional underpinnings.

JT has been equally critical of usurpative Republican and Democratic leaders and presidents. His direct concern is the rule of law, effective adherence to the Constitution, and the prevention of tyranny in our country. His motivations are essentially libertarian, with a view that people matter more than things.

By being politically consistent in that libertarian view, JT will likely be vilified by one political adherence or another, depending on which way the political wind blows currently. Stossel, Napolitano, Beck, Voight, Johnson, Oldman, Mamet, even Barr were all vilified because of their libertarian conversions.
Libertarians have always suffered this treatment, because we are true to more fundamental principles than politics.
Half the time one side will agree with us, half the time the other side agrees with us; neither recognizes that in both case we are both sides of the same coin.

68. StevenP says:

To Dotingly your student
“A law professor has much better ways to articulate his views.” Poor attempt at scolding your professor.
Professor Turley, as a citizen, with knowledge of the law and the constitution, may believe the core principals articulated in the law suit are correct, regardless of his political affiliations and beliefs. That, dear little student, is called integrity! Professor Turley should be respected for their courage to stand up for what they believe in. Integrity and courage seem to be things you know nothing about but are witnessing a live demonstration of.

69. swarthmoremom says:

“Yeah, JT is a rube, right SWM?? ” nick Actually I think he is the exact opposite of a rube. He grew up in a fine Chicago family and went to the best prep schools and universities the city has to offer. He travels the world and avails himself of vast cultural opportunities. Hardly a rube……..

70. Richard Gordin says:

It is shameful that the House Republicans are using public funds to pay for what is essentially a political action, no matter how it is characterized. It is a misuse of such funds to promote one political view over another. It also is hypocritical for the House to authorize funds for this when the same House members vote against the use of the funds for so many public, politically neutral, purposes.

And what does it say, Mr. Turley, about your understanding of, and belief in, the underlying basis of our government that you are willing to accept public money to promote a blatantly partisan effort?

71. Nick Spinelli says:

SWM, Seeing all the agita you folks have over this is really amusing to many of us. It’s been a rough couple weeks for the Dems here, and elsewhere. This is a failed presidency, and no spinning is going to change that. In the middle of the night, when the truth is most likely to appear, I think most Dems know that. This isn’t just failed policies. This is a failed philosophy. The notion that elitists know what is best and can competently run a govt. has been eviscerated. You know my hope, that being people finally tire of the duopoly. I think this was a seminal moment in history to that end.

72. “It is shameful that the House Republicans are using public funds to pay for what is essentially a political action, no matter how it is characterized.

The votes, hearings, and establishment of Obamacare was essentially a political action, no matter how it is characterized.

Indeed, all of government actions are essentially political actions, no matter how they are characterized.

And so what?

73. ” This is a failed presidency

Actually, Obama got rich, got some nice vacations, and played golf with his buddies all over the world.
So he did pretty darn well.

74. Nick Spinelli says:

Richard Gordin, You’re on the wrong thread for a rant about shameful use of public funds. Go to the Bergdahl ransom boondoggle and rant away.

75. Nick Spinelli says:

JT must shake his heads being lectured to by people who could not shine his shoes, intellectually speaking.

76. swarthmoremom says:

Nick S, Look like elitists and their lawyers are still running things to me. Some old leaders like McConnell are in power now but why do you think he is not an elitist?

77. @pogo

Yep, Dunn is an example. Just watch the liberal-ish commenters for a while and I swear you will see what I mean. That is why things that should irritate a person with principles don’t them, unless a Republican does it.

Take Dunn, for example. Don’t you think he ranted and raved about Bush when Bush was over-reaching??? Sure he was. But now that it is Obama over-reaching—crickets—except to keep castigating Bush. Why wouldn’t a person with principles rant and rave about both of them? Simple, far too many Democrats are unacquainted with principles. That is a foreign concept to them.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

78. “In Federalist 51, James Madison warned that “[i]n framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

“The Administration has made no secret of its willingness, notwithstanding Article I of the Constitution, to act without Congress when Congress declines to enact laws that the Administration desires. Not only is there no license for the Administration to “go it alone” in our system, but such unilateral action is directly barred by Article I. Despite such fundamental constitutional limitations, the Administration repeatedly has abused its power by using executive action as a substitute for legislation.”

This lawsuit is not a republican or democratic one, it is a Constitutional one. If Obama is allowed to get away with these unilateral actions, then what will future Presidents do, if they don’t get their way in Congress. What if a President Scott Walker does a Executive Order banning all abortions. If Obama can get away with this, future Presidents will too.

79. Nick Spinelli says:

SWM, I have said here several times, Reid and McConnell are 2 old white guys from opposite ends of the duopoly. Not a nickels worth of difference. I want folks to get fed up w/ BOTH parties. I think we’re getting there. JT hates the duopoly as much as I. You love it..well the left half.

80. BarkinDog says:

The RepubliCons need to start their Impeachment efforts now.

What I find interesting in the Complaint is the amount of money spent by the Executive Branch to pay insurance companies. There is no olive branch which is going to intervene. The Supreme Court will probably do a Bush v. Gore act on this case. But on the political side I do not see any new Bill in Congress to repeal Obamacare. Why not? Wait till January and ram it through. Same with migration. Americans do not need health care. They are quite suicidal. Boner for example, out there smoking in the hallways all the time. He does not deserve that free medical care that Congress gets. A Congressman gets free medical care for life if they get elected and serve one day. We need to repeal that. Old people get Medicare. We need to repeal that. Fire all the doctors. Become an 8th Day Dog Adventist and renounce science and medicine.

81. swarthmoremom says:

“Nick Spinelli

JT must shake his heads being lectured to by people who could not shine his shoes, intellectually speaking.”
Well, maybe everyone should just shut up .

82. The Republicans will not impeach Obama.

They like their liquor stores and Quickie Marts.

83. Inga says:

SWM, lol.

84. Dust Bunny Queen says:

“What I find interesting in the Complaint is the amount of money spent by the Executive Branch to pay insurance companies.”

It isn’t necessarily the amount, although that is egregious; it is the way in which the funds have been illegally appropriated. ONLY the House can make appropriation bills and which then must be approved by the Senate. The Executive Branch can’t make up completely NEW appropriations and spend the tax payer money. Congress has the power of the purse, meaning they can say YES or NO on spending.

This also goes to the heart of the current case in the SC about the administrative rule from the IRS which is appropriating spending through the Federal exchanges when the law specifically says “an Exchange established by the State”. The IRS does not have the authority to spend tax payer money that has not been authorized by Congress.

85. 2014 says:

I am not sure if the president realizes that he has offended a large number of people with his behavior/personality. He continues to think that if Republicans play hardball with him they will lose support of the majority of people, and then he can engage in even more contemptuous behavior; however, I am not sure if that will be the case. I believe that the majority does not like how he has been and would like Republicans to provide proper consequence.

86. Nick Spinelli says:

For all the newcomers. I was a history teacher among other professions. I suggest you brush up on the history of this blog. Go in the archives and click on the post from exactly one year ago, 11/21/13. It’s titled, MSNBC Host Suggests Someone Should Defecate in Palin’s Mouth. Then, just browse other posts w/ 100 or more comments. There has been a profound change here in commenters in just this past year.

87. @Dust Bunny Queen. . . ” The IRS does not have the authority to spend tax payer money that has not been authorized by Congress”.

What about the IRS having the authority to arrest a citizen for conforming to the ACA laws which the state has control?

88. swarthmoremom says:

Well, one thing there were more lawyers.

89. What about the IRS having the authority to arrest a citizen for NOT conforming to the ACA laws which the state has control?

90. 2014 says:

Spinelli, is the change for the better? Were the comments back then agreeing with the MSNBC at that time?

91. @NickS

I am not trying to flog a dead horse, but I think the point I am trying to make is pretty important. You want both sides of the spectrum to see the bad things that are going on in their own party, but you will never see that happen unless you can address the fundamental lack of a moral sense (principles) present in so many Democrats. The cause is probably as much biological as anything else.

When one of them fusses about Bush doing something wrong, that has nothing to do with right or wrong to them, They are mimicking the language of people with principles. Therefore, they have the appearance of being principled, without any real clear understanding of or appreciation for such things. For them, it is simply a political attack. In fairness to them, they probably do not truly understand how their own deficiencies.

When a Republican launches a similar attack on the Democrats, you will hear a lot more talk about right and wrong and principles. But the Democrat does not understand that concept. All he or she can do is PROJECT their own inner mindset onto the Republican—to wit, all the “it’s political!” crap you see on this thread.

Start noticing how seldom the liberal-ish commenters on this side make a substantive response to a conservative-ish point in a discussion. That isn’t by accident, or design. It is simply that one side has no conception of generalized principles of right and wrong. It is also why you see so much derision of Christianity here by the Lefties. Those people can not understand morals, or why anyone would limit their own behavior. It is sociopathic-like. George Orwell was getting at the same ideas in 1984.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

92. swarthmoremom says:

My spouse took con law at Northwestern University. My daughter took it at the University of Texas although maybe she should have taken it at Georgetown since none of us live in Texas these days. We talk about it at home so I try to stay informed, and I have learned a lot from Prof. Turley. I like Balkanization which is operated by Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin. Constitutional lawyers have different opinions on these matters and that is a good thing, but could I debate a constitutional law professor? NO

93. swarthmoremom says:

Squeeky, “You want both sides of the spectrum to see the bad things that are going on in their own party, but you will never see that happen unless you can address the fundamental lack of a moral sense (principles) present in so many Democrats. The cause is probably as much biological as anything else. ” Maybe, I inherited from my Irish catholic dem mom. Good luck at demonizing her.

94. Inga says:

Squeeky, with what you have posted regarding old people, gay people, black people, Democratic people you are the very last person who can speak to morals and decency and sociopathy of any commenter here of any political leanings with any credibility what so ever. Beat up any old ladies lately? Call any gay person a vulgar sexual name lately? Do you think YOU are a good representation of a Christian? I doubt you have a grasp on your own behavior and how you appear to others on this blog.

95. swarthmoremom says:

oops inherited it

96. @inga

Yep, what I said above about a lack of a “substantive response.”

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

97. swarthmoremom says:

Inga, Squeeky’s values are different than the catholic values I was brought up with. Need to run. We are meeting some librul friends for dinner. Will be eating Russian dumplings…….

98. Observer says:

Squeeky, I am of the view that for anyone who continues to worship this administration, is really not someone who can be engaged in any meaningful discussion as it will be just a waste of time, only thing that can come out of that debate/discussion is a high blood pressure. People develop beliefs and personalities based on the pattern of neuronal circuits they have developed and facilitated over decades, consciously and subconsciously. Diversity of thought is valid only to a certain extent, once the reality testing boundaries have been crossed, there is little room left for looking at things from a different perspective. Unfortunately once the neuronal circuits have been established, it does not matter which law/business/med. school one goes to , one will get out from his/her education only what one is capable of .

99. Inga says:

Sounds delicious SWM. Have fun with all the “sociopaths”, lol.

100. Nick Spinelli says:

SWM, I have said many times you are an intelligent commenter. I am not saying anyone should not speak their mind. And, I think all have a right to debate JT. It is the folks LECTURING him on this like paternalistic mentors that is mind boggling.

101. swarthmoremom says:

They are topped with sour cream and dill. I did not appreciate eastern European food until recently.

102. Inga says:

SWM,
I make a wonderful cucumber salad with sour cream and dill, eastern European food is good eating’. I’m off to make dinner for my son tonight, I have some curtain rods he’s going to put up for me, gotta feed him first, lol. He’s a democrat and a union member and not too sociopathic.

103. Inga says:

Sue, yeah, they don’t lke nurses around here.

104. @Observer

You are probably right. I made some very valid points in one discussion the other night, and the response was pretty much a sneer. It’s not as much that they don’t respond. . .it’s that they can’t. They don’t have the requisite mental equipment.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

105. Nick Spinelli says:

Squeeky, I have a different perspective than you. A bit of history. I was a liberal weenie in my youth. I was a VISTA volunteer. As I have said, our professions shape much of our politics. I worked for the govt. out of college and my eyes started to open. I saw a mindset that was antithetical to the blue collar, hard work, ethnic family in which I was raised. I moved to the private sector as an employee and then started my own small biz, the latter being an epiphany.

That sojourn moved me more and more to the right philosophically. I see the hypocrisy of which you speak. But, I do not think the Rep are THE answer. I think the only answer is to have a political, nonviolent, revolution and destroy the duopoly. We differ on some issues, but I respect your right to have any view you wish. I don’t judge, like the very judgmental liberals here. “To each their own” is the oft use phrase used by my mom. Little did I know as a child that 4 word phrase would become my political and personal philosophy. Remember, I’m a libertarian, and you hate libertarians!! Just bustin’ your lady balls.

106. Inga says:

Some things deserve nothing more than a sneer.

107. @Inga

Well, I did write you your very own Irish Poem in honor of your new name!

Inga Management???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm

There once was a lady named Inga,
Who loved finding poopie to flinga.
Oh, she liked stirring pots
And taking cheap shots. . .
But she luvvvved flipping her middle finga!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

108. Nick Spinelli says:

I love RN’s. My son-in-law is one, getting his Masters in December, as is a best friend we vacation w/ yearly.

109. Nick Spinelli says:

Squeeky, I think that poem makes fun of Eyetalians speaking broken English. I’m going to imitate the subject of the poem and CRY INCIVILTY!! LOL.

110. Vaya con dios y much suerte,Profesor!

111. Inga says:

Squeeky here’s my response.

112. Nick Spinelli says:

Observer, That’s why I call them cultists. They have ALL the characteristics of following a cult leader. It amazes me because although I greatly respect some people, even a few politicians; there is NO ONE I would ever follow as a cultist. I have too much of a mind of my own and self esteem to ever be a cultist.

113. Nick Spinelli says:

Almost as visually offensive as the former avatar.

114. Aridog says:

DBQ…99% of the time I agree with you. However your comment….

The Executive Branch can’t make up completely NEW appropriations and spend the tax payer money. Congress has the power of the purse, meaning they can say YES or NO on spending.

This feature, or bug, (IMO it is a bug) is enabled solely by the fact we have operated on Continuing Resolutions, more or less, for 6 years…not a formal budget. Under a CR the Executive Branch as 95% percent of the prior year’s appropriation (via CR’s no less) to divert and spend money as they please. It is like giving an unlimited credit card to a chain dope smoking teenager.

In short, they don’t have to make up appropriations, they can ride on the back of past ones, but without accountability for how the funding is expended. I am an old uniform military and civil service military “fed”…I’m not guessing, it is what I’ve personally witnessed for over two decades.

Main point: Under continuing CR’s, no one has to approve jack diddley squat…however it’d be nice if the American voting populace could grasp that fact. They can’t and won’t because like most of us, they are preoccupied with day to day survival.

Don’t believe me, never mind I actually participated and experienced the impacts for 20+ years….40+ years if you count the uniform service. Sadly, you will not be informed by most of the MSM….partially because it’s not their political cup of tea, and partially because they really have no clue…never been there done that to feel the impacts. Washington DC is the ultimate place to hide when things go awry. No one there likes to have the truth shoved in their faces. No one.

So be it. We get what we deserve, and sometime that is nasty. Don’t blame others, look into yourself and decide if you can fight or just acquiesce? I am too old for either, I think….

115. issac says:

Spinelli

Any fool knows that Sandy Koufax was a goalie for the Detroit Red Wings.

116. Nick Spinelli says:

LOL, I just realized, “Sue” is sockpuppet #43. That’s not sociopathic it’s…!!

117. Nick Spinelli says:

Isaac, Very good! I like that response. Trooperyork made an allusion to Koufax being gay up thread. I have read a couple books on Sandy. I was a pitcher and copied his straight overhand delivery. I love the guy and always have respect for that tough decision he made not to pitch in the WS on Yom Kippur. I think Sandy might be gay, NTTAWWT, but I’m not certain. Trooper is sure of it. He thinks he has gaydar.

118. I agree with you that the Republicans are as screwed up in their own way as much as the Democrats. I don’t see Libertarianism as the answer. I think it is responsible for turning both parties into fantasy realms for their true believers. You can’t structure a large population around a “do your own thing” morality. But, what the hey. We’re already doomed. Unless we get like a big Great Depression, or an asteroid strike, or the Chinks or Arabs nuke us, or Yellowstone goes apepoop. Something like that would jerk people back to reality.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

119. Inga says:

Sue, Spinelli suspects everyone of being my sockpuppet. Would you please tell him you are not me? This obsession with sockpuppets is amusing coming from Spinelli of all people, especially after the comments that were deleted by JT this morning in another thread. I hope he realizes JT can easily check IP address.

120. Well if you were paying attention to that Munsters episode he was totally checking out Herman’s ass.

121. Observer says:

Nick, it is very disappointing that we have cult leaders/followers even in the first world. I saw a clip of Real Time and I literally felt sorry for Bill Maher to see how stoned and deep he is in this “cult”. Everyone else, who does not support the president/his party ,in his view, is just “stupid” or racist.

122. @trooper
But he’s not going to get much action with a broken bat.

123. Nick Spinelli says:

Lame.

124. Darren Smith says:

Would it be possible to cease these juvenile attacks between others? There are matters of great importance discussed in the article and the various informed commentaries. This strife is directly akin to walking into the U.S. District Court where the lawsuit was filed and creating a scene by arguing and pointing fingers to show who can out-insult who. It is not much to request that this type of behavior be stopped or taken to another website.

125. Nick Spinelli says:

She’s not even smart enough to see she blew her cover. LOL!!!

126. Gary T says:

Darren:

You are just a big fat party pooper.

Oops, sorry, that was just my inner (immature) child shouting out.

127. Nick Spinelli says:

Observer, Cultists have a lot of smug in them, and no one is more smug than the midget, Bill Maher.

128. Inga says:

Squeeky, you might know some of these PUMAs! Cute song and dance.

129. Nick Spinelli says:

Darren, I think the main problem is leaving for the evening.

130. Inga says:

I have no “cover” Spinelli. I have nothing to hide. You need to get a grip before you get deleted again today.

131. @Gary T

LOL!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

132. Inga says:

Good! Have a good time wherever you go tonight Spinelli.

133. Why leftists support Obamacare even though it will degrade health care for all:

“Leftists are identical. They cannot map out the long-term consequences of their actions. The amygdala hardware is just not there. So they seek the pleasure of the moment, avoid any hardships – even those which might yield benefit later if endured now. Eventually they collapse the very governing structures they need to hide behind, to shield themselves from reality.

134. Nick Spinelli says:

Trooper, That’s Durocher, not Koufax, you bozo! I think Drysdale was in that classic episode?

135. @NickS

What gets me about Bill Maher, is that if people were like him, and lived their lives the way he lives his, then you wouldn’t have a country. IIRC, he hasn’t ever married, or produced a child, and spends his free time smoking dope. Maybe that works for him, but only because most other people don’t live that way. Sooo,l what exactly makes him so cool??? IMO, he is the epitome of a spoiled rotten baby boomer.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

136. Sorry. I didn’t mean to be so frivolous and take away from the important issues of the Day. That’s why I didn’t even bring up the famous three way that took place before the World Series in 1963.

I promise I will be more serious in the future. Sorry.

137. The time draws ever more near when the courts shall and must at last address the relevancy of Congress and the role the Constitution requires it to play as the body of, by, and for people living in what is to be a representative democracy. Will it finally be this time? Will the Judicial Branch continue to shirk its duty to redress the usurpation of powers of and between the other two branches? Will it again slide on the matter and say it is up to politics and the political process to decide the fate of liberty that is so dependent upon the principle of separation of powers?

138. Koufax is standing behind him. If you look at it from left to right. So to speak.

139. Ron,
I find it increasingly hard to believe that Chief Justice Roberts will rediscover the actual wording of the Constitution, but instead will simply redefine more words (e.g, tax, not a penalty).

140. Nick Spinelli says:

Trooper, I’ll have to take your word on it, the photo is too dark.

141. Nick Spinelli says:

Trooper, Darren has a great sense of humor. I’m fairly certain he’s fine w/ Munster’s and Mister Ed comments. I would hold off on the panda photos just yet.

142. rafflaw says:

Swarthmoremom,
Be careful with those commie dumplings!

143. I hope he listens to you Nick. I know you can spot a troll from way off and are not afraid to point them out.

144. Nick Spinelli says:

LOL! I used to be that fat, but those loafers?? Is that a family photo? Uncle Guido drinking wine in the back yard?

145. Groty says:

What if after the appeals you get a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court and Obama decides to ignore the ruling? After all, he has usurped the legislative branch’s authority, what makes you think he gives two figs what the judicial branch will say?

It is obvious to me that Democrats don’t care about the reasons why the separation of powers is crucial for the long term survival of the republic. They are driven by greed and only care passionately about making someone else pay for their healthcare. There are few, if any, principled Democrats who will vote to impeach Obama even if he ignores a judicial ruling.

What then? Do we go full banana republic with a temporary military coup d’état to restore order? Do people take to the streets in violent protest, Ferguson style? Things could get much uglier than they already are. What an unmitigated disaster this guy is and what the Democrat Party has become.

146. Observer says:

Groty, he will have a press conference and will tell the justices who ruled in his favor or abstained (if that is possible) that he heard them and that he is really enjoying the press conference.

147. Marc:

I’ve worked with people who came here legally. They had to periodically return to their home country to renew their work visa. It was very disruptive but they persevered and followed the law to the letter. Then there are those that went through the looooooong process of becoming a legal citizen.

Shouldn’t all those people get refunds? Do you not have to pay if you are Mexican, or some other close neighbor? Is it rude for people who live geographically close to us to follow the rules?

Because I’m interested in how an amnesty supporter would explain this to all those legal immigrants who jumped through hoops for years, waited their turn, and paid their dues.

The fools. Didn’t they know no one has to follow the law? It was all a big waste of time and money!

148. “That’s a pretty expensive “nothing” for taxpayers.

So is amnesty, but that didn’t stop the socialists.

149. SWM:

Saul Alinsky openly advised his followers to lie to promote their cause.

So, anyone who defends Alinsky has the right to post here, but we all have the right to question these admittedly dishonest methods. It’s Machiavelian.

150. Inga says:

Guess what Groty? Professor Turley has said he’s for national healthcare. Is he selfish too?

151. Nick Spinelli says:

Hope that poor kid gets supper.

152. Why have we become jaded at the idea that when citizens break the law, there are consequences, but when government employees or politicians break the law, there are not?

It’s considered outside the pale of reason that there should be any consequences for Obama defying the law and the separation of powers. For Lois Lerner using the IRS to target American citizens. For Eric Holder to be held in contempt of Congress. For the NSA to lie about spying. Etc. Etc.

There is this general uproar when people call for actual consequences for these actions, and for correcting the boat. Like these people are Teflon somehow.

153. Inga says:

Since you are so nosy and intrusive Spinelli, he’s not coming over until he gets out of work and by the time he gets to my house it’ll be 6:30, so you can watch the clock.

154. Professor Turley takes the stand that should be obvious, and yet is unfortunately rare:

That one’s politics should have no bearing whatsoever on the rightness or wrongness of a politician’s actions. He might support the ACA, but his sense of justice does not support a Machiavelian, or tyrannical power grab to get it.

Why is this so hard to understand that we should not judge lawfulness through political glasses?

155. Inga says:

That’s Central time, not San Diego time.

156. k2O says:

Karen, why it is so hard to understand that it is all Bush’s fault.

157. Nick Spinelli says:

TMI. LOL! Some witnesses don’t even require a question. I just walk in the door and start talking. Shutting them up is the challenge.

158. Michael Haz says:

Thank you for defending the Constitution, Professor.

159. Inga says:

As I said Spinelli, I have nothing to hide. And I’m sick to death of your underhanded creepy tactics, when it comes to my private life and my children. Your comments of this morning that were deleted were disgusting and reprehensible.

160. Michael Haz says:

Squeeky –

I doubt that the Pope can beatify Obama. But what you described is something Stevie Nicks could so.

161. Nick Spinelli says:

LOL! Like I said, some witnesses just won’t stop talking. They often dissemble, embellish, just make stuff up, but they just keep talking. This display is surreal.

162. Michael Haz says:

If this is a lawprof blog, when do we start discussing house pets?

163. Nick Spinelli says:

Haz, LOL! What a difference. It’s incredible.

164. Inga says:

Spinelli, you need to realize your IP address is traceable.

165. Each man is his own absolute lawgiver and dispenser of glory or gloom to himself, the maker of his life, his reward, his punishment.

Obama chose his gloom, the bad part is, he’s forcing the American people to live the reality of it. As far as his glory, that has yet to be decided.

166. Nick Spinelli says:

I feel harassed. I made NO comment today that was deleted. I REPORTED the comment in question IMMEDIATELY. It was deleted after I REPORTED IT, within 4 minutes. The comment in question was up less than 15 MINUTES TOTAL, early in the morning, but amazingly YOU saw it and commented on it ~5 MINUTES AFTER it was deleted!! JT knows all this. He thanked me for helping him get the comment and another 2 offensive comments on the same thread deleted quickly. Ask him!! I have the emails. This is childish and frankly, sadly desperate. Leave me alone and stop lying about me. I have STRONG suspicions on who posted that sockpuppet comment, but I have integrity and don’t make accusations w/o evidence. It was a middle school ploy, it failed miserably, and the more you talk the more guilty you appear!

167. Inga says:

No Spnelli there were two comments tha wherein THA nread directed at me as YOU well know. One was regarding m heritage with some Nazi references and and the other was regarding my children, a threat. The IP address of that commenter tells the tale. You Spinelli are continually sayin every new person who Ipsa liberal is m sockpuppet, THAT is creepy and incredibly hypocritical considering what YOU have engaged in. You seriously should be ashamed of yourself. I’ve been harassed by you for two years now and it’s gong to stop. You need to protect your IP address if you are going to harass me on the Turley blog.

168. Inga says:

*on that thread that were directed at me*

* who is a liberal*

169. Inga says:

I apologize to Professor Turley about this uproar, but a person can only tolerate so much. Please do not allow the person from that IP address to comment on this blog anymore. Your liberal commenters do not need to continuously be inmidated by tactics by such vile people. It is a way of stopping speech by those they disagree with. It’s disgusting and should not happen on a Consitutional law blog.

170. k2O says:

Ok let me admit first i have zero legal back ground, so if I ask something too “stupid”, keep that in mind;
1-I have heard that this case maybe rejected by the court even before it begins, why is that ? I mean what will be the reason? What is the JT counter argument about not having a “standing” (dont know really what that means either) ?

2- Could this lawsuit be filed directly in the supreme court?

171. @K20

Standing is kind of like if Bob and Mary are married. John comes along and files a divorce action saying Bob and Mary should be divorced. Huh??? Who is John to be filing a lawsuit for somebody else’s marriage to be ending??? He has no standing to file. (Unless he is acting in some sort of court sanctioned capacity, for example, if Mary is in a coma or something.) That is one aspect of standing. Wiki has a very good quick read on standing. Here is part of it:

Standing requirements

There are three standing requirements:

Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.

Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.[34]

Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.[35]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

172. “…it’s the original question.” Like to think I’m beyond this, but reading Prof’s words just made me cry like a baby. Praise the Lord…and pass the ammunition to Prof Turley to take his best shot.

173. Eric says:

Randy Dunn: “Where was Turley when Bush lied to start a war?”

Your premise is incorrect.

President Bush didn’t lie to start a war. Neither were Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom unConstitutional.

For OIF, see Public Laws 102-1 (1991), 105-235 (1998), and 107-243 (2002) enforcing UNSC Resolutions 678, 687, 688, 1441, etc, and the UNMOVIC Cluster Document that confirmed Iraq’s material breach of UNSCR 687 and related resolutions.

US law authorized the President to use military force to enforce the Gulf War ceasefire UNSC resolutions. UNSCR 1441 was “determined to secure Iraq’s full compliance” with the “final opportunity to comply” enabled by the US-led credible threat of regime change. At the decision point for OIF, UNMOVIC confirmed “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687” (UNSCR 1441) with “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” (Cluster Document). That was the trigger.

The law and policy of OIF are straightforward and plainly show Bush’s decision was right on the law and justified on the policy. Whether Bush made the wrong decision to follow through on the threat of regime change when Saddam failed the compliance test in his “final opportunity to comply” is a political question, not a Constitutional question.

See my answers to the questions, “Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?” and “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom legal?”, starting here:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html#didBushlie

174. Dust Bunny Queen says:

Would it be possible to cease these juvenile attacks between others?

I second Darren’s comment. There are important things happening. Serious things. Historic things. Please quit with all the junior high b.s. Stop referencing deleted comments. They are deleted and no one can see them anymore. For God’s sake. Grow up.

No. One. Cares.

175. Inga says:

DBQ, no one cares that you don’t care. I care, liberal commenters here care. We deserve to be able to comment here without intimidation and intrusive comments directed toward us and our families personally in order to squelch our free speech. If these types of personal attacks were directed at you, you WOULD care. This is is a blog dedicated to free speech by all, even liberal commenters.

176. Dust Bunny Queen says:

One of the issues that are referenced in this suit is the illegal spending of tax payer funds. The Legislature is in control of appropriating funds…especially for something as vast as the ACA subsidies. Not the IRS. Not Obama.

There are also it seems some pending actions and suits on the behalf of the States regarding Obama’s Imperial Decree. Oklahoma is going to sue (I heard it on the news tonight). Other States are likely going to join in. Obama’s blanket amnesty, plus the chain immigration it will cause, and the huge financial burden that will be placed on the States to pay for all of these illegals who might decide to come out of the woodwork. I say might, because I know some illegals who are definitely not interested in becoming visible.

WHO is going to pay for all of Obama’s amnesty program? He can’t just pull money out of the budget (ha ha ha what budget) and he can’t appropriate money. Where is the money going to come from. Congress has the power to fund or de fund. I suggest that they use that power. It would be much more effective than a prolonged impeachment fight.

177. Sue, I saw your comment. It should have been removed because of your personal attack on JT.

178. Inga says:

And Sue is NOT me as Spinelli said she was. Again the IP address will tell the tale.

179. ;-) says:

god, there is a fight going on here, is there a psychiatrist in house to calm people down?

180. k2O says:

Thanks Squeeky. Another question, does federal court allow news channels to broadcast the proceedings?

181. Inga. . . you’re the one who jumps on everyone. I made a comment to him and you took it personal and challenged me. Lighten up! Nick Spinelli apologized and you still can’t let it go. I just want to discuss Mr. Turley’s case brief.

Have you ever heard this: “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

Ok, have a great weekend and a wonderful Thanksgiving.

182. Dust Bunny Queen says:

And Sue is NOT me as Spinelli said she was. Again the IP address will tell the tale.

No. One. Cares.

Really.

183. @DBQ . . thumbs up.

184. Darren Smith says:

Once again there is this continuance of these interpersonal attacks rather than sticking to worthwhile discussion on this article and others that come into being. I had hoped what I wrote before would be taken to heart, as some have, but yet it went by the wayside for some who continue with this contention.

It is rather frustrating to spend over five hours writing articles for the weekend, and for a break to come back to the comments and read what people have to offer, that I perhaps could include within the content of my writings, only to discover that this ridiculousness continues.

And it is not only myself that spends much time, there are others and especially our host who puts quite an effort in providing you with a forum for which to discuss the issues despite enormous time constraints otherwise. It is not offered to foster a means to continue bickering about each other and not even passionately advocate for one’s point of view. Again, it is not just I that ask for this to stop but likely many others who do not chose to post their displeasure with this or believe quite reasonably that it would only serve to continue the nuisance. So again, it is not too much to ask that these problems cease or move on to another forum that encourages this type of discourse.

185. Is it a real possibility that this issue of the 6 or 8 changes to the ACA, made by Obama and not Congress, will actually null & void the ACA as a total law? Or does it just affect the financial aspect of the law? And if the law is followed, is retroactive and what would that achieve? Would anyone have a opinion on these. . .I’m not an attorney but love history and government.

186. I don’t understand why this topic is divisive.

It’s not about what political party you belong to. If you don’t want a King, then you oppose attempts to gather King-like power. This should be a political unifier.

187. @Jettexas

I will take a shot at it. The ACA will most probably not be ruled null and void. The actual complaint above asks for the following relief on Counts 1-5:

B. Enter injunctive relief as follows: (i) With respect to Counts I,II, III,IV, and V, enjoin defendants Lew and the Treasury Department from making any further Section 1402 Offset Program payments to Insurers unless and until a law appropriating funds for such payments is enacted in accordance with Article I of the Constitution.

Which means certain monies would stop flowing to the Insurance Companies. That may have the effect of rendering the ACA more unworkable. In the last SCOTUS hearing of the ACA, the Court struck down several provisions of the law, but left the rest of it intact. IIRC, the States were not required to expand their Medicaid expenditures.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

188. @Karen S

But that is exactly the point I was trying to make above. For some people, particularly Democrats, this and every other issue is ONLY “about what political party you belong to.” Their minds are not capable of divorcing the issues from their personal desires. Just like a sociopath, they see something, and they want it sooo, they take it. That is why so many discussions here go nowhere.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

189. swarthmoremom says:

It is not a unifier at all. House republicans are suing. Turley is their attorney. The democratic caucus is not a part of this .Now if the Bush appointee judge that has been assigned to this the does decide to give the case standing it probably won’t be heard until the end of Obama’s term.The DC Circuit court is very liberal these days so the lawsuit ultimately will probably be a loser.

190. @Karen S ~ I agree with you that all people on both sides should be united in stopping the Executive Branch from making laws, he is put there to enforce them. Congress makes them and the Judicial branch defines them. it’s very serious when the President makes laws or changes them to fit his agenda.

Whilst I feel that the ACA is un-affordable, as people I love whom do not make much, their teachers, and the monthly costs of their insurance has gone up 3 times what it was. Their deductibles are reaching almost $6000. The costs eat up much of their salaries, not including taxes and dental & vision. My daughter came home from the dentist, whom replace a bad tooth with a cap, and she has to pay over$2,400 dollars. She is a full-time teachers assistant & full-time college student and makes not much more than $14,000 a year and minus the insurance and taxes. She lives with me now, so I put her on my American Airlines retired APA insurance, which is still the old$150 deductible because it was agreed to in the contract negotiations between the union and AA. So she just has to pay for dental & vision but it’s still not worth the money.

My best friend is a teacher at the same district and her costs are ridiculous with the equally high deductible. If only 6 mil signed up, whose going to pay for this? Obama is trying to put that burden on the states, yet if you don’t pay how is it the IRS can arrest you!

191. Dust Bunny Queen says:

Or does it just affect the financial aspect of the law? And if the law is followed, is retroactive and what would that achieve?

I’m a former financial advisor and financial planner (20+ years series 7, 65, variable life, health licensed) now retired. The financial aspects of the ACA as presented never ever made any sense. I knew that it was really a Ponzi scheme and would likely bankrupt most insurance companies. And it would definitely do so without the subsidies, which are illegal

Now that the subsidies and associated tax credits are involved in this suit, it has become even more problematic. If the Federal exchanges are invalidated for tax subsidies, will the people who have received the “free money” have to pay it back? Will the insurance companies have to pay it back? Who pays?

I don’t believe that the people who, in good faith, subscribed to Obamacare and received subsidies…… in the amounts of many thousands of dollars a year…..will be forced to pay that money back. They can’t afford that! That would be horribly unfair. The insurance companies would be bankrupt if they had to cough up all that money.

I can’t imagine it to be retroactive. However. Going forward it is also going to be difficult as much of the insurance infrastructure has been destroyed. Medical infrastructure (doctors, hospitals and clinics) have been decimated.

Obama care has essentially NUKED our health care system.

Is there a fix to this. I dunno. I think so. Hope so.

However, I still support entirely this lawsuit to reign in our out of control Executive Branch as the results of collapse of the Constitution.will be even harder to fix than the health industry debacle.

192. Inga says:

I care DBQ, that YOU don’t care is of no consequence to me. Tell your buddy Spinelli to stop saying every new commenter here is my sockpuppet or shut up yourself.

193. swarthmoremom says:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-democrats-packed-the-court-1410125684 “The difference now is that Harry Reid last year packed the D.C. Circuit with three of President Obama’s nominees, so liberals now outnumber conservatives by eight to five not counting senior judges. The Senate Majority Leader nuked the filibuster rule for judges, allowing them to be confirmed with 51 instead of 60 votes, precisely so the court would become the garbageman to dispose of unpleasant legal challenges to the President’s regulatory decrees. ObamaCare is Exhibit A.”

194. A democratic or republican judicial appointee should not matter in the rule of law. If a judge does not find harm in the law changes made by the executive branch, then they’re remiss in their duties as a judge. That’s what JT see’s and ultimately why he took the case. He sees the future ramifications that these illegal executive changes can have on the executive branch & legislative branch and not what the framers wrote the Constitution for. But also have remedies in case it happened. Mind you, they left a country with a King, whom made laws at his will.

195. 2014 says:

Watch Kelly File, she is talking about balance of power. first segment was extremely powerful !

196. @2014

Amen to Megyn Kelly! I wish I could post a transcript of that first segment here.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

197. SWM:

Why aren’t more Democrats getting behind this lawsuit? Are they unaware that other parties will eventually hold office? As Prof Turley said, they will rue the day they allowed an uber Presidency.

I do not want any President of any party to have the power of a dictator or a king. The separation of powers keeps all 3 branches of government separate, and with equal power. Give all that power to one branch, and the result is devastating to democracy.

I hope that more Democrats, Libertarians, and all other people start contacting their representatives, urging them to get behind this lawsuit. If all parties unified against his power grab, I think Obama would finally be checked.

Because I do not wish that the next Republican President will be able to rule like a king. I want this stopped, now.

Why don’t you???

198. Jettetexas:

I’m in the same boat. I pay almost $1,000/month for insurance for 3 people, and we each have deductibles of$6,000. PLUS I need to pay out of pocket to see a doctor, because I can’t find any good ones who accept Obamacare.

Doctors have to take a factory line approach, spending minutes with each patient, just to keep the doors open with what Obamacare pays in CA.

What a mess.

199. Inga says:

No conservative here seems to care that there could be millions without healthcare once again. The basic gut level drive is to get rid of the ACA without having anything to replace it with. To go back to the status quo will only send healthcare prices soaring once again to accommodate the millions who will go back to using the ER as their primary souce of healthcare. There was no concern for the uninsured at any point in this whole long battle to destroy the ACA. The ACA should’ve been a stepping stone to Universal Healthcare, but that might just be too ‘socialistic’ for the right to ever embrace, what a sad statement for a civilized country like ours.

200. @Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter ~ Thank you for your response. I wondered if the relief asked for would have much of an affect on this law. Although Judge Roberts called it out right, as a tax, something kept from the American people. I know Jonathan Gruber was mentioned in a brief to the Justices, do you feel that will have any influence on the outcome of their decision?

201. DBQ – it’ll stop if you ignore it.

202. Darren – please don’t despair of us, even though we can be a trial like herding cats sometimes.

203. Inga says:

And millions had NO healthcare and struggled to find free clinics. People with preexisting conditions were simply OUT OF LUCK.

204. 2014 says:

Squeeky, what do you think about Lawerance Tribe . One has to be quite shameless to be among the 10 who support this executive action, when he was even in the campaign ads of this president. A half way decent person would have not come forward in the support of this EO , after having been in the ads for the president.

205. Now cancer patients can no longer go to the cancer treatment center that specialize in their cancer. They are severely limited in where they can go. Off-formulary drugs now have zero coverage.

So people can lose their chances at remission and die because of this hideous law. People can get knocked right out of the middle class and into poverty with the absurd premiums and deductibles, thanks to this law.

Anyone who thinks this is a humane solution to the problem of health care for the poor is fooling themselves.

206. @JetTexas

Yes, I think Jon Gruber will have an impact on the ACA decision about the federal exchanges. Depending on which way SCOTUS flops, Gruber may only get “honorable mention” in a dissent, but I don’t see how they can completely ignore an ACA architect’s statement about the intent to use the subsidies as a carrot to the states..

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

207. swarthmoremom says:

Karen S, I think the motives of the house republicans are suspect so I do not support their lawsuit. You will probably have better luck with the Supreme Court than the DC Circuit with regards to Obamacare. But since you live in California and the state has their own exchange you just might be stuck with it.

208. Observer says:

I believe the Obamacare has adversely affected the residency training as well. I am sure any faculty member/residency training director can tell you more about this aspect.

209. Bruce Peloquin says:

Question Jonathanturley—-Do you really think that the republicans in congress gives a damn about the constitution??????????????

210. @2014

Like I said above, for too many Democrats it is not about right and wrong. It is simply about the Democratic Party. Ann Coulter wrote a very good book called “Demonic” about the Democrat’s mob mentality. Here is an excerpt from a review:

What make this her best book are her incisive demonstration that the revolution was the mother of the many totalitarian “revolutions” it spawned in the name of the people, her dissection of the mob mentality that drove it, and her case against today’s American liberals as exemplars of this mob mentality.

She first establishes her base line, defining the mob as “an irrational, childlike, often violent organism that derives its energy from the group. Intoxicated by messianic goals, the promise of instant gratification, and adrenaline-pumping exhortations, mobs create mayhem, chaos, and destruction, leaving a smoldering heap of wreckage for their leaders to climb to power.”

Sound familiar? It should, because “the Democratic Party is the party of the mob . . . Indeed, the very idea of a ‘community organizer’ is to stir up a mob for some political purpose.” No truer words.

She then systematically identifies the Democratic Party’s mob characteristics and how its leaders’ appeal to them — through distortions, inflaming passions, demonizing opponents, and substituting propagandist images and sound bites in place of facts, ideas and persuasive argument.

The Democratic Party is nothing if not a repository of hackneyed slogans (“the laws of logic have no action on crowds”), repeated mindlessly and incessantly and designed to thwart the rational consideration of ideas with appeals to incendiary, false rhetoric: “Bush lied, people died.” “No blood for oil.” “Tax cuts for the rich.”

Next, Coulter takes us on a gripping tour of the murderously barbaric and ghoulishly bloody years of the French Revolution and its philosophical underpinnings, which were inspired in part by Jean Jacques Rousseau.

She writes that “all the bloody totalitarian dictatorships of the twentieth century have drawn inspiration from Rousseau and the French Revolution.” All the “great liberal ‘reformers’ of the twentieth century, from Lenin to Hugo Chavez,” got their “playbook from Robespierre” — probably the worst and most radical of the French revolutionaries — “who argued, following Rousseau, that a ‘Republic of Virtue’ could only be achieved by ‘virtue combined with terror.'”

Democrats, says Coulter, “are heirs to the French Revolution, the uprising of a mob,” whereas “conservatives are heirs to the American Revolution and the harmonious order of a republic.” Indeed.

She details the leftists’ attraction to tyrants in the past 75 years, from Soviet leaders to Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez, and its reflexive opposition to democratic leaders and movements, from Chiang Kai-shek to the Nicaraguan Contras.

But it’s not just the liberals’ choice in regimes that parallels the French revolutionary tradition. It is their strategy to advance their policy agenda through exploitation of mob psychology, a phenomenon we are witnessing with alarming frequency today, especially under the Obama administration.

It’s no accident that the Democrats’ campaign for Obamacare was bathed in unconscionable lies, beginning with the grossly inflated numbers of uninsured, and then forced into law over the people’s strenuous, well-known objections — a perfect illustration of the totalitarian outworking of the “general will.”

Whether or not you agree with Coulter’s trenchant analysis, she has done her homework and applied tight logic, two things you can be sure her leftist critics will eschew in favor of the mob-style tactics of name-calling, innuendo, distortions, and demonization.

http://www.newsmax.com/Limbaugh/AnnCoulter-Demonic-FrenchRevolution-taxcuts/2011/06/10/id/399557/

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

211. @DBQ – The financial aspect was something that was dis-concerning because the President changed it last year and it the ACA is supposed to stand on it’s own, then so will the free money. As I agree it will be impossible for those to be paid back. However, it is a dilemma.

@Karen S – I just had back surgery 3 months ago and next week, I’m having neck surgery. If I were on Obamacare aka ACA, it wouldn’t happen for several reasons. I couldn’t afford to pay the deductible and this ACA Panel probably wouldn’t allow me to have the surgeries because I’m over the age of 40. American Airlines tried to dump our insurance in bankruptcy court and a federal judge would not allow them to do so. When I left AA, I went to work in law enforcement, which can be a physically demanding job. I worked booking in bad guys, like finger prints, mug shots and paperwork to the state, the feds or DHS.

Most times, people brought in are drunk, tripping on drugs or just plain angry for being arrested and they take their anger out on us with physical attacks. So my trying to keep bad guys off the streets has earned me a bad back and a bad neck and I feel I deserve to be free from pain when I was a public servant. Because of my injuries, I’m unable to work now. I’m still young and have 2 full time college students to financially support. It’s been tough the past few years, as my salary seems to get smaller, but living on retirement from AA right now but their trying hard to dump our insurance and put us on ACA. For them to make us get on Obamacare, I would have to get a full-time job. This ACA is the worst thing that has happened to this country. Also my home lost 2/3’s of it’s value under Obama. Worst 6 years of my life.

212. Nick Spinelli says:

It fascinates me that folks think this lawsuit is an either/or. There are REAL constitutional issues and OF COURSE there is politics. JT is in it for the constitutional issues. This is pretty basic stuff.

213. Nick Spinelli says:

Bruce Peloquin, there is a 3 ? maximum. But, there is no max on !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

214. 2014 says:

@Squeeky,
wow , completely agree with her.

“Intoxicated by messianic goals, the promise of instant gratification, and adrenaline-pumping exhortations, mobs create mayhem, chaos, and destruction, leaving a smoldering heap of wreckage for their leaders to climb to power.”

Megyn keeps on asking how he can get away with this, but the fact is that he even got away with something like Benghazi in which American lives were lost. This got to change and I hope this lawsuit is the start of that change. I mean if this kind of lawless behavior is not challenged now then can you imagine what would happen if someone like Rick Santorum is the President?

215. Inga says:

SWM, the House has dirty hands as so many have said here and in the other thread. It’s sad that they don’t seem to have a sincere concern about the separation of powers as Professor Turley does, it is merely lip service. They didn’t care in the least when Bush did it. They don’t care that Obama is using his unilateral authority for the war in the ME. They don’t want to have to authorize the war, but they want him to do it. How is that not hypocritical?

216. @2014

Yes, I can see a Republican President refusing to prosecute employers who failed to pay minimum wages, for example. But I also see Republican congressman rising up to rein in him.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

217. Inga says:

And Hillary will magically turn into a Republican.

218. Inga says:

And unicorns are real.

219. Jette:

Sorry about your back and your neck. Thanks for working in law enforcement.

Bruce:

And yet, Professor Turley will be there if and when the Republicans try to create an uber Presidency. That’s what happens when you make it about the Constitution instead of politics. It’s clarifies the issues, no matter which party is under scrutiny at the time.

Nick:

I know. I don’t get why people seem to think that Professor Turley should not defend the Constitution, merely because he is a Liberal and the lawbreaker is a Liberal. Like there should be a wink and a nod to your own party, and only keep the other side in line. There does not seem to be any self awareness of this tendency on display.

220. @Inga

I am not going to help you derail this thread by fighting about Hillary. Plus:

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

221. Inga says:

You just did. I suggest you take your own advice.

222. I found two quotes that would thirst for comment, in light of what we are dealing with now:

A nation under a well regulated government, should permit none to remain uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.

Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792

But where says some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain…let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING.

Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

223. Inga says:

Squeeky,
I am pointing out your cognitive dissonance and in doing so, I question your belief that a Republican Congressman would ever rein in a Repulican President. That is magical thinking. Being a Republican would not make that happen any more than being a Democrat would make it happen.

224. cognitive dissonance says:

I hate it when people overuse me. It usually happens when they first learn about me. I hope this person stops the obsessive use soon.

225. Inga says:

I hate it when the term sockpuppet is overused. I’ve use the term cognitive dissonance for years and it it apropos in describing what I see in Squeeky regarding her issues with her intense dislike of Democrats in contrast to her adoration of Hillary.

226. Feyd Rautha says:

This suit is a joke. The Repubs suing to enforce the terms of the Act they’ve tried to repeal hundreds of times! How about non Congressionally approved wars? There’s something worth suing Obama for.

227. @Inga

You said, “Being a Republican would not make that happen any more than being a Democrat would make it happen.”

That is the “projection” that I was talking about. You “project” your way of seeing the world onto others. You are shrilly partisan, and principle-averse, sooo you presume that Republicans think just like you do.

This is not to say that Republicans are not just as stupid about some things as the Democrats are about others. Both parties are full of stupid, histrionic “wrestlers”, but in my experience, Democrats tend to be the “bad wrestler, and as I have repeatedly said:

Trying to explain right vs.wrong to a Democrat, is like trying to explain to a bad, cheating, folding-chair using, pants-pulling-down wrestler why he didn’t win the WWF Belt fairly. He is not able to understand what you are going on about. All he knows is, he won the match and belt, and if his girl friend jumped into the ring and whacked the good wrestler over the head with a chair while the referee wasn’t looking- – -well, what difference does that make??? After all, he has the belt. Isn’t that all that matters???

The day that you grasp that, is the day that you can stop being a “bad” wrestler. I am not holding my breath.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

228. Inga says:

Exactly right, Feyd. The Republican congress seems just fine with letting him assert executive action in the ME. Why no Sturm und Drang over that? It seriously puts their sincerity in question.

229. Inga says:

My principles are just fine Squeeky, they are however quite different than yours.

230. @cognitive diss

LOL!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

231. Inga says:

Squeeky you and that “cognitive dissonance” above are sympatico, huh?😀

232. Nick Spinelli says:

Some are suggesting that because of Obama’s contemptuous and petulant acts toward Congress that he should not be extended the offer to speak to the Joint Session. He should be told to submit his SOTU in writing and it will then be entered into the Congressional record. That’s how many presidents handled the requirement. Politics is hardball, not bean bags.

233. Nick Spinelli says:

Who will be the first to call that RAAAACIST?

234. All the time there vas issues ven ve vas kinder. All veys she vants to be fraulien bossy hosen.

235. They are going to call racist no matter what , so as far as I’m concerned that’s not a bad idea, maybe interventions like that are needed to help modify obnoxious behaviors . Can republicans do that ? They maybe surprised that people may actually favor consequences .

236. A little brinksmanship… Boehner wouldn’t do it.

237. Richard Albert says:

Lordy, what a fun site!

Nick, I’m surprised nobody has played the race card.

And to be perfectly clear, I have nothing agains Hawaiians.

238. Paul says:

Constitutional principles mean something. I applaud the good Professor for taking this on. I am confident by many of the rants above that he will loose friends over this. But it needs to be done.

Bush took us to war in Iraq with bad intel, perhaps he lied. Congress bought those lies and gave him permission, no constitutional principles violated here. Big difference with what is happening with the present lawsuit. After 8 years of Repos and war, the people spoke and threw the Repos out of power, completely, both houses and a Prez. 2 years later the house was lost by Demos back to Repos. Why? because the Demos over stepped their authority. Then 4 years later the Demos lost the Senate. Why, because the lies of the Demos were catching up. It is a perfectly constitutional principle for Congress to not pass any legislation. It is not Constitutionally permissible for the Prez to then make up his own laws or spend money not allocated by Congress. Period. If you don’t like what Congress is doing, vote the bums out.

239. Aridog says:

Inga, you said…

The basic gut level drive is to get rid of the ACA without having anything to replace it with.

Not exactly true…both parties, from John Kerry (2004) to Daryl Issa (2013), and others, have proposed a far more workable solution, with all the necessary remedial features of the PPACA without the hassle or need to create a new agency department or database, etc. I’ve commented on it several times here and elsewhere.

Results: crickets.

I have no intention of describing it again.

240. […] challenge against US president of Barack Obama health reform Obamacare.  That communicated the lawyer engaged by the conservative Jonathan Turley on its Internet […]

241. Paul , nice post !
Fully agree !

242. This president is damaging the country by encouraging mass immigration , exactly what Jefferson had warned against , as people bring their beliefs from a less developed world and will not be able to assimilate with people here . Immigration has to be legal and controlled to encourage the immigrants who are willing to , and capable of , assimilating with our system . It seems like this president has no regard for the direction given by the founding fathers , directions due to which the US is what it is . He does not understand how serious of a problem he has produced , as reflected by his mocking of republicans , who he needs to run the country . So sad that he has no clue …just a bubble of arrogance ..

243. 2014 says:
244. 2014 says:
245. Mike Appleton says:

I note that there are almost 250 comments on this thread, few of them having anything to do with the actual dispute outlined in the complaint. I would like to address a few concerns raised by the comments. I have been told that it is always good to start with an anecdote.

My very first trial was a final hearing in an uncontested divorce for a client of my boss. Now, the basic logic behind sending a baby lawyer to handle an uncontested divorce is that it is uncontested. I prepared a list of questions, spoke with the client and the client’s residency witness and prepared a thorough and grammatically superb final judgment. My client and her witness testified perfectly at the hearing. I rested and requested permission to approach the bench to present my masterfully drafted final judgment. There was a brief silence, after which the judge inquired, “Counsel, do you intend to ask your client whether the marriage is irretrievably broken?” Immediately grasping the significance of that subtle hint, I made my very first motion to reopen a case to submit additional evidence.

And that leads to my first point, which is that if your lawyer tells you that your case is a slam-dunk, your very next move should be to get a new lawyer. The Complaint filed today alleges that certain actions by the President under the ACA violate both statutory and constitutional provisions and requests declaratory and injunctive relief. It raises a host of issues, none of which have easy answers. What are the limits of executive discretion in the implementation of statutory mandates? What obligations, if any, does Congress have to fund legislative enactments? Should the courts decline to consider the case under the political question doctrine? Are there procedures available to Congress to resolve the apparent impasse without judicial intervention? Since equitable relief has been requested, can the plaintiff establish irreparable harm and an absence of legal remedies? Has Congress historically acquiesced in the face of similar unilateral action by previous presidents? Does the House even have standing to bring the action?

My second point is that the motives of the House in bringing the lawsuit are immaterial if the Complaint raises justiciable issues of law. Indeed, a plaintiff may harbor ill will or even hatred toward a defendant. The only concern of the court is whether it has been presented with a genuine controversy which it has the power to adjudicate.

Third, I absolutely detest the routine practice of criticizing lawyers for taking on causes with which one disagrees or clients whom one despises. In the forty years I have been working in the legal trenches, I have found that the overwhelming majority of lawyers with whom I have dealt went to law school because they believed in the rule of law and were committed to the notion that every human being ought to be treated equally under the law. I have also concluded that most lawyers continue to believe in those ideals even after they experience failures of justice. Most people who follow this blog are aware of my opinion of the current denizens in the House of Representatives, but that opinion has no bearing on whether the case is meritorious. I do have some thoughts on that issue, but reserve them for another post. The point is that I resent the tendency to judge lawyers by the clients they represent or the causes they advocate.

I trust that most commenters have gotten the partisan rancor out of their systems at this point and that further discussion can focus on the issues actually presented in the litigation. That may be a vain fancy, but hey, I’ve always been a hope and change kind of guy.

246. Mike Appleton says:

Observer:

Your statement that “people bring their beliefs from a less developed world and will not be able to assimilate with people here” is merely another example of the xenophobia with which people have reacted to every wave of immigration in this country since its founding. And history proves that it is nonsense.

247. Winski says:

Professor Turley… I am appalled… I have followed your work and the content / tone of this blog for a number of years and this is, by orders of magnitude, the most glaring right-hand turn both you and this forum have ever taken. Did the Republican party or any of it’s affiliates, donors (known or unknown), subsidiaries, outlets or spin-offs pay you a large sum of money or hit you twice in the head with a concrete demolition hammer, and it spun you in a completely opposite direction and/or into a different belief system than the one we witnessed from you for many years.

I got some indication earlier this year when you mentioned that you had begun taking a dismal view of the Obama administration and it’s lack of ‘doing what they promised’.. But this 180 degree about-face is disturbing….

Even if most are not students of recent, applicable American history, and they are prepared only to venture back to the days when Ronny Raygun played the American President for the cameras, they need to consider what has occured. That history, up to present day, is filled with multiple Presidents taking executive action to begin the process of righting a fundamental wrong that our guiding statutes have morphed into based on the dynamic nature of our republic. They have been followed by NEW statutes to replace those out of sync and we as a people have moved forward. It seems that ‘process’ is now fundamentally and procedurally broken.

Filing suit against the nations President seems to be a publicity stunt – at best. It follows up more than 50 attempts to repeal the act (ACA) by the lower house of the nations congress, either in full or in pieces which has failed EVERY attempt to pass.. That effort is past the point of being a glaring, subliminal message. That message being ‘STOP YOU KLOWNS – MOVE ON TO SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT”.

And now, YOU’VE taken up this case?? I’m stunned.

Timing for the filing of this suit is also dubious – at best.. On the day the President announced an executive action on IMMIGRATION, you and your rethuglicon clients file a suit focused on the ACA? Curious..but way too obvious..

I guess I should wish you happy sailing on this. Your client will pay you and your folks a LOT of cash for your efforts. They, and you, have NO CHANCE of having ANY impact for at least the next 10 years.. Lots can change in 10 years.. I look forward to welcoming you back into the fold of the rational before then…

248. Inga says:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2014/11/experts_suing_an_uphill_fight_for_congress

“Federal judges don’t typically get involved when other branches of government take political brawls to court — and that spells trouble for House Republicans suing the Obama administration.

“It’s difficult for the House to show that it has been injured by the president’s actions because the Constitution sets forth procedures in which Congress has other remedies,” said Eric Lieberman, an attorney who successfully argued a separation-of-powers case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. “A court will not allow these cases to go forward.”

While the cases may have merit, courts have systematically held that lawmakers don’t have standing to sue other branches of government.

“It’s pretty clear that the House doesn’t have any authority under the Constitution to bring lawsuits that say the president has not carried out the law,” said Alan Morrison, a George Washington professor who won a separation-of-powers case at the Supreme Court. “Only people who have suffered an injury as a result of this…

“If they think the president is abusing his power, they can impeach him, and I predict they may try that,” Lieberman said. “They’ll never get it past the Senate, but that’s something they can certainly try.””
********************************

This issue of standing is perplexing. Why does JT think that the court will hear the case? Who in the House has been injured? Can the Constitution ‘claim’ its been injured here somehow? Something like corporations are people, is the Constitution a person now (sounds silly)? I’m confused about how it can be proven that the House has been injured here.

249. Inga says:

I think the House does not want to impeach President Obama because it would injure their Party irreparably. So they are doing what they think will placate their base, a lawsuit. I think they know full well they have no standing. This should be aggravating to taxpayers who will be paying for this “show trial”. How likely is it that this suit will rein in Presidential powers? How can one branch like the Judiciary tell another branch, the Executive, that they are taking power away from them? It sounds almost like a Judicial coup. Why should the courts have more power than the other two branches?

250. T. Hunt says:

What a colossal waste of time, taxpayer money and the resources of a once great mind. That you choose this moment to stand up for principle is mind boggling. I understand your loyalty to the idea of representation and the spirit of seeking justice but… You couldn’t find a better cause or issue to weigh in on than this one?

Rather than try to help to make the law better, you’ve chosen to jump on the bandwagon that wants to nitpick it to death. Are there flaws? Of course there are. Is anyone trying to fix them? Not that I’m aware.

And where has all this concern been regarding presidential overreach in the last decade or more? Who knows, but it sure wasn’t part of your concern then. This doesn’t seem so much about the law and the constitution as it does about rank opportunism.

Disappointing. And I understand just how much my disappointment means to you but you’re the guy who has to look in the mirror every morning.

Tom Hunt

251. Nick Spinelli says:

MikeA, Thanks again. I like it when people generously offer their personal experiences to enhance their points. I had clients I would not piss on if they were on fire. My benefit was most folks did not know for whom I worked as I kept my work private. But, there were some clients, like attorneys and insurance companies for whom I would often work. Some were real a-holes, and the questions would come “Why do you work for that guy?” Well, because they pay me and I have mouths to feed. With JT’s case it’s not financial, it’s philosophical. For people to have the temerity to impugn his integrity for taking this case disgusts me.

Many of the people opining on this case have no legal experience. JT has a world of experience and I KNOW he would not take a case if he didn’t think it had merit. People who allegedly respected him are saying they no longer do simply because he took a case against their beloved cult leader. It shows a fundamental ignorance of the adversarial process. But, more importantly, it shows an abandoning and lecturing a good and honest man.

252. Nick Spinelli says:

The comment prior to mine is a good example of what gives me agita.

253. Aridog says:

Mike Appleton said…

Third, I absolutely detest the routine practice of criticizing lawyers for taking on causes with which one disagrees or clients whom one despises.

I certainly agree with that statement. In fact I have said it, more or less, at least twice (IIRC) on the “House Hires Turley” thread. Your point about searching out a lawyer who will be truthful with you is germane…e.g., if you cannot trust your lawyer, why do you hire him or her? All causes and cases are entitled to an attorney, it is how our system works.

Far be it from me to try to advise Professor Turley how to proceed in taking or refusing a case. He has the knowledge and experience in front of the bench that I don’t have (by magnitudes of scale) …never mind that many cases do not reach the bench at all and are resolved in mediation. You still should have the best lawyer for the task at hand and in this case, that policy has been met. In my previously mentioned 15 odd year duel with the IRS over assessed penalties for alleged fiduciary errors (not over taxes I had not paid, I have paid all my taxes), we won out through protracted re-mediation, by application of technical aspects of the law and regulatory schedules, never going to court per se.. I could not have won without the best lawyers in my area for purpose of tax re-mediation. Honest, forthright, and bulldogs on the technical aspects. Anyone saying I was foolish to do so, or they were foolish to take my case, has never faced a similar issue. Good lawyers are not that hard to locate, and yes, for sure, if one says you case is a slam dunk, find a better lawyer…you need the truth from your advisors, not a cheer leader corps.

I am confident Professor Turley will provide the necessary honesty and advice as the case moves forward, or it it is dismissed he will explain it succinctly to his clients. Old adage aside about killing all the lawyers, if you have no lawyers your are at the mercy of either tyranny or unscrupulous defendants or plaintiffs. If the case is serious, you need to not take a marsh mellow (you & your own naiveté) to a gunfight, so to speak…take the best counselor you can find and afford. And listen to him or her.

254. It is abundantly clear that some people don’t care about the Constitution at all.

They scream about Executive excess when their opponents use it, but they’re perfectly fine when their side guts it.

They like goring the of, just not their ox.
Unprincipled power-seeking.

255. Currently the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), an agency within defendant HHS – the Administration specifically requested, “for
carrying out . . . sections 1402 and 1412 of the [ACA], such sums as necessary,” and, “for carrying out . . . such sections in the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, . . . $1,420,000,000.” This is where the money for the ACA is coming out, instead of a Treasury account established for the purpose of making Section 1402 Offset Program payments to Insurers (account no. 009-38-0126). (Presumably this was so because there was no money in that account since Congress had not appropriated any funds for Section 1402 Offset Program payments.) This is what Congress seeks relief from Instead; defendant Burwell said, Section 1402 Offset Program payments “will be paid out of the same account from which the [Section 1401 Refundable Tax Credit Program payments] are paid,” an explanation that she justified on grounds of “efficiency.” Which means that defendants are using the permanent appropriation meant to pay for tax refunds due under the IRC (31 U.S.C. § 1324) to fund not only Section 1401 Refundable Tax Credit Program payments, but also Section 1402 Offset Program payments, even though (a) the ACA does not permit that permanent appropriation to be used to fund Section 1402 Offset Program payments, and (b) 31 U.S.C. § 1324 expressly states that “disbursements may be made from the appropriation made by this section only for (1) refunds to the limit of liability of an individual tax account, and (2) refunds due from credit provisions of the [IRC],” 31 U.S.C. § 1324(b); defendants’ direct payments to Insurers under the Section 1402 Offset Program are neither. The Constitution does not permit such a sleight of hand. Absent enactment of a law appropriating funds for the Section 1402 Offset Program – and no such law exists – defendants may not legally or constitutionally make Section 1402 Offset Program payments to Insurers. Obama is taking money out of a account that is meant for funding tax refunds and paying for their offsets, instead of taking money from an account set up in the Treasury Dept, which has no money in it. Since no law exist to do that to pay insurers, it’s illegal. He can’t just unilaterally take money from another fund meant for a specific means and for which Congress did not approve. That is the relief Congress is seeking because they can’t vote to de-fund money from accounts that are already legally appropriated. Basically, it’s illegal and I suspect that the account that was set up to designate those funds is empty and has to be voted on by Congress will be what Congress uses to “de-fund” the ACA. Therefore, no other account can be designated to pay insurance companies for the offset of monies they lose, except this account in the treasury. Just a layman’s account of the complaint filed and the relief requested by Congress. It basically takes their powers away from them and Congress has the purse strings, not the President. In Federalist Paper no. 51 “James Madison (1751-1836) worries about how to create institutions which would check personal ambition and the “encroachment” of one branch of government by the other but the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man, must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions”. “This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power; where the constant aim is, to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other; that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the state”. I agree with some points that Mr. Appleton made above, in that Professor Turley should not be judged by taking on a case based on Constitutional values and not party affiliations. The founding fathers specifically separated the powers to keep a single act from a single branch from happening. As Professor Turley stated that President Obama acts as a single government when he makes a law, funds that law and defines that law all by himself. It’s not political, it’s about the Constitutional separation of powers that need to be checked. These laws were made by the lone government action one man named Barack Obama. Again, I’m not a lawyer. I’m just a citizen who loves my country and freedoms. I take personal interest in any one man whom makes a move to encroach upon my liberties as a citizen of this country. President Nixon was Impeached for less and so was President Clinton. Their choices were more a moral break down instead of a illegal move against our Constitution. 256. Lastly, it’s been pointed out numerous times that non attorneys comment in this blog. I would think that Professor Turley would invite comments of all people and not just from lawyers. As he stated, he took this case not only for the integrity of our Constitution but for the people of this country. I thank him from the bottom of my heart that he has taken up the cause for all of our interests. 257. Nick Spinelli says: Jett, I am not an attorney, but I have worked w/ them for almost 4 decades. One does not need to be an attorney to discuss legal issues. However, one does need to have basic knowledge of the judicial system to intelligently opine. You are obviously very intelligent in that regard. MikeA is an attorney, and one of the very good ones. Many are sanctimonious and don’t think they should discuss legal matters w/ the huddled masses. 258. Nick Spinelli says: Jett, Being a PI it doesn’t take me long to determine the folks talking out of their asses. I think you also have that skill. 259. When the Professor describes this President’s actions as ‘tearing at the very fabric of our Constitution’, it makes me think of the two sides in this debate; those that respect the boundaries of the law and those that don’t; those that believe the limits have a purpose greater than themselves (humility) and those that believe the limits are subordinate to their desires (arrogance). And this reminds me of that old practice of courtship bundling; for the purpose of this discussion, we essentially bundle our elected representatives in the “fabric” of our constitution. Unfortunately, when our government escapes this device, it’s not just your daughter’s ‘virtue’ at risk. 260. Inga says: in·gra·ti·ate verb \in-ˈgrā-shē-ˌāt\ : to gain favor or approval for (yourself) by doing or saying things that people like ****************** Another technique used on newcomers. 261. Nick Spinelli says: Right on cue, and hit’s the marks every time. 262. @Nick Spinelli . . . thank you for your kind compliment. @Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter ~ I now follow you on Twitter. I would love to read more of your fabulous snarky & intelligent opines on various issues on there as well. Noticed you haven’t been on in awhile. 263. Nick Spinelli says: Jett, Squeeky takes short sabbaticals to practice her guitar and Lord knows what else!! She’s an east Texas girl and a Saint’s fan. I’m guessing you are a Cowboy fan? 264. And for all you “separation of Church and State folks: the fact you didn’t pounce on Obama’s Biblical references in his immigration speech proves you are as much a hypocrite as he is. Pathetic! 265. I’m more of a Saints fan also. Know too much about Jerry Jones and his son Stephen to be able to like anything he runs. However, I support the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders! I’ve been following Jonathan Turley’s cases for quite some time, mainly because I’m trying to figure out how a Liberal sided man can have such passion for Constitutional values. As most do not. I’m a former Democrat. I was Sen. Kennedy’s delegate & youngest one an the 1980 Democratic National convention and former Precinct Captain of the 8th Congressional Dist in Ohio (John Boehner’s dist). Even as a teenager, I started to see the hypocrisy of my party and by 1984, Reagan’s words seemed to pull me over to a more Conservative view of the world. Although not hard-lined Conservative, but this President sure pushed me more in that direction. For the first time in my life, I fear my government. I formerly worked for an airlines and then became a federal officer (hated the bs of that job), so I quit & went into law enforcement. I enjoyed that the most but too physically demanding. I’ve seen from the front lines, what this Presidents’ decisions have done, to many agencies as well as handcuff laws that should be followed to keep our country safe. smh I did vote for him in 2008 with high hopes that he could unite our country in many aspects where we were divided. He has basically, in my opinion parted the waters in many more areas. I’m disappointed and scared of him. I’m sure I will be attacked by others for this view, but it is just that, my view. I’m a nobody with just one vote. . . It’s fascinating that a Liberal attorney would take up the cause of Constitutional grievances and makes me happy that he has. 266. Inga says: 267. Inga says: Cavuto asks “Why sue now, why didn’t you fix this years ago?!” 268. Inga says: As Michelle Bachmann says, maybe this whole thing is about defunding the “Executive Branch”. Cavoto to his credit points out her gross hypocrisy and her scary usurpation attempts of the Executive by the Legislative. Does the Executive need to sue the Legislative for overreach too? What is this suit really about? 269. Mike , I was quoting founding fathers , you don’t have to be Ben aflecks of the world and start throwing terms like Xenophobia , when you may not totally understand what the other person is trying to say . I have worked with immigrants from all over the world and I have similar concerns as Thomas Jefferson had about ” mass” immigration , does not matter whether they are from Europe Asia or Americas . I’m not against immigration , I’m for immigration that is wise and will make us stronger and not weaker . 270. Inga says: Bachmann asks “What do you do, what do you do?!” when you hate it that a Democrat is in the White House? You destroy him any way you can. You “defund him”, you eviscerate the Executive. Remember there might be a Republican in the White House again one one day…. Well maybe not. 271. Prairie Rose says: “It’s sad that they don’t seem to have a sincere concern about the separation of powers as Professor Turley does, it is merely lip service. They didn’t care in the least when Bush did it. They don’t care that Obama is using his unilateral authority for the war in the ME. They don’t want to have to authorize the war, but they want him to do it. How is that not hypocritical?” That “they” could apply to Democrats, too. Democrats are silent about President Obama’s violation of the separation of powers, so apparently they don’t care about the Constitution either. Also, I haven’t heard any Democrat congressmen stating they don’t approve of Obama using unilateral authority for the war in the ME (if I’ve missed it in the news, please provide a link so I’m not so jaded). They don’t want to have to authorize the war either (wouldn’t sit well with their constituents). If people want to suspect the motives of the House Republicans for bringing the lawsuit, fine, but then motives of the House Democrats are also suspect for not doing so themselves. President Obama has violated the Constitution and should thus be prosecuted. It is unfair to continually question people’s motives without questioning the President’s actions. Also, if you want someone to prosecute the President for Executive overreach in regards to the war in the ME, then the Democrats should, by all means step in, since the Republicans are failing to do so. I’d welcome it. Since we’re on a lawsuit roll, how about bringing lawsuits over the NSA spying, too. P.S. Michele Bachmann irritates me, too. 272. Inga says: It’s never unfair to question. That is one of our strengths as a Democracy, no? 273. Inga says: PRose, The Congress as a whole are cowards, that’s why they don’t sue over war powers. They are happy to let the Executive overreach there so the won’t have to be blamed about it later. Also the Republican Congress is too cowardly to do what the Consitution provides for them to do, Impeach. 274. Inga says: Also Prarie Rose, perhaps the Democrats in Congress do not believe the President overreached with the ACA, why would they sign on to something they didn’t believe? Perhaps they think the ACA itself provides the President discretion in implementation. 275. Prairie Rose, You realize you’re trying to express concern about executive overreach to a constituency whose representatives gave a standing ovation to Obama when he vowed to make them irrelevant. There is no amount of reason that will penetrate that dearth of intellectual integrity. 276. I think Boehner waited to file after the reckoning the American people gave the President and the Senate at the last election. He probably realized that the American people do not support lawlessness in the executive branch. I do think the case will be taken up. As Professor Turley stated, when one man (the president) acts his own government, there’s cause for a remedy. The Republican congress isn’t too cowardly to fight for what the Constitution provides them and enter. . . Professor Turley! So at least the cowards are doing something, anything is better than nothing, as Congress has never been put in this situation in the history of this country. 277. Prairie Rose says: Inga, I never said it was unfair to question at all. It seems one-sided to question the Republican’s motives as though the lawsuit was without merit against a blameless president. That’s how the comments about motives come across. You are absolutely right that the Congress is full of cowards. However, I wouldn’t want the Republican Congress to impeach him–I would want a united Congress to impeach him. Executive overreach should not be a partisan issue. 278. Aridog says: JetTexas said …. He can’t just unilaterally take money from another fund meant for a specific means and for which Congress did not approve. JetTexas…you are a dangerous person! You’ve done a good job of researching the issues here. Your comment sentence I cite makes me wonder if the Anti-Deficiency Act (codified in 31 CFR) is applicable to this fund diversion? My experience tells me it is, since I have been subjected to audit under it, however IANAL. Anyone, lawyer or not, who can illuminate the issue regarding the Anti-Deficiency Act, please do so. I am aware that in the entire 100+ year history of the Act, no one has been indicted under it…all discipline has been done through administrative means following a negative audit finding. There is a mechanism for resolution without court time, but I am uncertain it could be accomplished outside a courtroom for this issue with PPACA and the Executive Branch. 279. @JetTexas Thank you! I have been thinking about starting back up to blogging on a general political basis. The problem is that I am a political hermaphrodite. I am conservative on social stuff, and progressive on economic stuff. Which being, that tends to irritate everybody. Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter 280. Prairie Rose says: “perhaps the Democrats in Congress do not believe the President overreached with the ACA, why would they sign on to something they didn’t believe? Perhaps they think the ACA itself provides the President discretion in implementation.” Is that their belief? I have not heard any Democrat rebut the lawsuit as without merit? If you have, please link to the story. I have not heard that the ACA contains anything allowing the president to change its contents or implementation timeline whenever he wants to. Does it? If so, what section? Also, even if the bill does contain such a thing, does that not automatically make it violate the Constitution and the separation of powers? 281. @Inga You said: “. . .perhaps the Democrats in Congress do not believe the President overreached with the ACA, why would they sign on to something they didn’t believe?” Hmmm. Perhaps the Democrats in Congress do not believe in anything except the Democrats being in Congress and being in the White House. . . Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter 282. Prairie Rose says: Olly, “Prairie Rose, You realize you’re trying to express concern about executive overreach to a constituency whose representatives gave a standing ovation to Obama when he vowed to make them irrelevant. There is no amount of reason that will penetrate that dearth of intellectual integrity.” I don’t think they really “heard” what he was going to do, just like Republicans didn’t hear or think about what Bush wanted to do with the Patriot Act, etc. I don’t believe there is a dearth of intellectual integrity in those with whom I discuss things–some people are just harder to convince than others. Insulting a person’s integrity is no way to have a civil discussion or have a dream of a chance of winning them to your position. 283. Doody Kravitz says: Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter I am conservative on social stuff, and progressive on economic stuff. You aint got no home: 284. @Aridog ~ thank you. I want to look the Anti-Deficiency Act (codified in 31 CFR) up and see how or if it applies and just give my opinion, if that’s ok. In the meantime, I’m going to go do something dumb first, that’s see ‘Dumb & Dumber to’, with my two beautiful daughters. 285. Inga says: Prarie Rose, it IS a partisan Congress. There won’t be any votes from Democrats to impeach this President. To wait for Democrats to sign on to this is futile, they won’t, because they see it as a partisan effort to destroy a Democratic President. That is why they, the Republican Congress should seriously think about what they are doing here, as Cavuto said several times. Is this what we want? A Congress in endless wars and letting the country go to hell. Do we pay have endless power struggles, don’t they OWE it to us as our elected representatives to TRY to do the county’s business? One filibuster after another after another. So then what does Ried do? Blocks their bills from the House. Or do conservatives think that the country’s business is to only destroy each other’s Presidents? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “He’s not MY President”. A majority of Americans voted for him twice and per the laws of our country that makes him every American’s President. Democrats aren’t blameless in demonizing Bush either. But never was there such blatant attempts to “Defund the Executive” as Michelle Bachmann so honestly said to Cavuto. One thing about Bachmann she let’s things out of the bag, which perhaps her fellow Republicans wished she wouldn’t have come right out and said aloud. 286. 2014 says: so if the lawsuit is not successful and there is no consequence to any of the other violations of the constitution, then does that mean this is the start of the end of a nation of laws? 287. Inga says: on 1, November 22, 2014 at 1:24 pmPrairie Rose “I don’t think they really “heard” what he was going to do, just like Republicans didn’t hear or think about what Bush wanted to do with the Patriot Act, etc. I don’t believe there is a dearth of intellectual integrity in those with whom I discuss things–some people are just harder to convince than others. Insulting a person’s integrity is no way to have a civil discussion or have a dream of a chance of winning them to your position.” ************************* They should clone you Prarie Rose. 288. Observer says: Life is not that simple Inga, what if the other person is incapable of seeing things differently, not because of cognitive deficits but because of psychological coping mechanisms that can distort reality. Have you heard about denial in alcoholics? 289. ” There won’t be any votes from Democrats to impeach this President. ” Five Democrats voted to impeach President Clinton on the first three articles of Impeachment, although only one supported the abuse of power charge. Never say never. 290. Prairie Rose, You don’t believe they “heard” what he was going to do? Do you know that transcripts of the SOTU speech are sent out in advance? That they know exactly what he will say and when he will say it? That nothing about their standing ovations are spontaneous; it’s carefully choreographed and that the cameras are prepared to spotlight certain members? Dearth: “the state or condition of not having enough of something” Intellectual: “of or relating to the ability to think in a logical way” Integrity: “the quality of being honest and fair” I wasn’t insulting their integrity; I was giving them a compliment. I’ve ceased engaging the many ‘personalities’ in this blog that would actually deserve the term absence, instead of dearth. Regardless, I look forward to being proven wrong and you convincing them to adopt your position. 291. Inga says: Nooooo, you don’t want to see Nancy Pelosi’s “stamens”.😉 That should be “statement”. 292. Prairie Rose says: “They should clone you Prarie Rose.” That’s sweet. “Prarie Rose, it IS a partisan Congress.” You are right, and it is unfortunate. “There won’t be any votes from Democrats to impeach this President. To wait for Democrats to sign on to this is futile, they won’t, because they see it as a partisan effort to destroy a Democratic President.” That’s a silly reason not to follow the law–just because someone is from the same party. “A Congress in endless wars and letting the country go to hell.” This is the fault of everyone in Congress. Not continuing this lawsuit will not stop it if Democrats don’t also sue the President for violating the Constitution regarding war. Not continuing this lawsuit will not stop the country from going to hell; I think it will actually help the country stay on that very course. If any president is allowed to get away with violating the separation of powers (and Bush already has! grrr), then we just continue on that very path. “Do we pay have endless power struggles, don’t they OWE it to us as our elected representatives to TRY to do the county’s business?” Yes. But, the country is filled with highly gerrymandered districts, which in turn elect highly partisan politicians who want nothing more than to get power. They are not interested in doing anything else but get what power they can (and if that means handing some power over to the president so they can ensure their own re-election, then that’s what they’ll do). “Or do conservatives think that the country’s business is to only destroy each other’s Presidents?” I am in agreement with you; I don’t think President Obama is a president just for the Democrats. He’s OUR president and I am very concerned about how he is treating that office and the rest of our system of government. “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “He’s not MY President”.” That’s irrational and those who say it need to rethink how divisive and unhelpful that kind of comment is. ““Defund the Executive” as Michelle Bachmann so honestly said to Cavuto.” What does that even mean? I missed it on the news. Again, I think Michele Bachmann is one of those politicians who says stuff to please her constituents without really thinking about what she’s saying overall. If defunding the executive means ending all those payments to dictators in the ME (like Karzai), then I’m all for it! 😉 293. Inga says: Constitutional scholar Simon Lazarus says, “The relevant text requires that the President “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Scholars on both left and right concur that this broadly-worded phrasing indicates that the President is to exercise judgment, and handle his enforcement duties with fidelity to all laws, including, indeed, the Constitution. As McConnell himself notes, both Republican and Democratic Justice Departments have consistently opined that the clause authorizes a president even to decline enforcement of a statute altogether, if in good faith he determines it to be in violation of the Constitution. But, McConnell contends, a president cannot “refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons.” While surely correct, that contention is beside the point. The Administration has not postponed the employer mandate out of policy opposition to the ACA, nor to the specific provision itself. Thus, it’s misleading to characterize the action as a “refusal to enforce.” Rather, the President has authorized a minor temporary course correction regarding individual ACA provisions, necessary in his Administration’s judgment to faithfully execute the overall statute, other related laws, and the purposes of the ACA’s framers. As a legal as well as a practical matter, that’s well within his job description. [The Atlantic, 7/17/13]” 294. Inga says: Scotusblog’s Lyle Denniston said, Given the complexity of modern government operations, very few of the laws that Congress passes are completely self-executing; most if not all of them require regulations to put them into actual effect. And writing regulations is the business of the federal agencies. An array of government agencies have been working for more than three years, for example, to write the rules for the new Affordable Care Act – the vast new law regulating the entire health care financing system. The Supreme Court just last month went a long way toward requiring federal courts to trust the government agencies that execute the laws to interpret for themselves just what authority Congress has given them in their areas of official activity. What an agency decides is the range of its power, that ruling said, should be given considerable deference by the courts. Very telling in that decision in the case of City of Arlington, Texas, v. Federal Communications Commission is that it was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court’s strongest believer that the courts should be very strict in following the letter of the laws that Congress passes. The actual text, not what someone said about it, is what controls, he has said, over and over. Scalia, a former professor of administrative law, seems quite tolerant of agency discretion. [Constitution Daily, 7/10/13] 295. Inga says: Thanks for a good discussion Prarie Rose, gotta run some errands. I wish you’d comment more often. 296. At the outset of Obama’s presidency, the republican party, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner did everything they could to prevent consideration of any of Obama’s programs. They wanted his presidency to be short lived and short on accomplishments. Sure, the founding fathers established a government with three equal branches as you continue to point out. But the republican party’s intransigence, their refusal to allow bills to be brought to a vote, their insane overuse of the filibuster, their refusal to approve the president’s judicial and cabinet nominations, essentially eliminated an entire branch of the government: the executive branch. So shame on you Jonathan Turley for suing the President for the minor variations he made to the ACA. No one actually objects to those minor changes. The suit was filed to destroy the ACA. Had he turned to the congress to make these minor changes, they would have stonewalled him. They did not want what the majority of the American people wanted. Health care for, at least more, if not all. HE HAD NO CHOICE. He was elected overwhelmingly (twice) because of the platforms he ran on. Contrary to the majority of the comments on your site, the recent elections did NOT signify a repudiation of his programs. It was a significantly low turnout (therefore much whiter, much older demographic) and apparently low information voters because they voted FOR such things as a r aise in minimum wage, etc. and then voted for candidates who opposed these changes. As a physician, I feel qualified to say that health care must be a right not a privilege. And all statistics point to the fact that this is cost effective for the nation. So what you are doing may get you the approbation of those low information voters, who unfortunately watch too much Fox News and listen to too much talk radio. But is it truly the right thing to do? Resoundingly NO. Shame on you. 297. As a physician, I feel qualified to say that health care must be a right not a privilege. What part of your medical training has given you the expertise to determine what is a “right”, Joan? 298. “As a veterinarian, I feel qualified to say that health care for dogs must be a right not a privilege.” “As a home builder, I feel qualified to say that housing must be a right not a privilege.” “As a sports anchor, I feel qualified to say that access to ESPN must be a right not a privilege.” 299. I think the right to legal counsel is fundamental, so I favor single-payer legal services, as long as lawyer’s incomes are limited to a socially-just amount, like 75K/yr. 300. Scott J. Tepper says: Congratulations. You don’t mind if we consider you the Orly Taitz of Congressional lawsuits, do you? This lawsuit is just as pathetic as most of hers. And you went to a real law school! 301. Dr. Joan, Congratulations! You’ve managed to regurgitate every imaginable liberal talking point on this subject without even a hint of evidence. Well done. Does the Hippocratic Oath mean you charge for the privilege of your services when you actually believe your patients have a right to them? 302. Uh, ahem, uh, pardon. . .but . . .Obama appears to have left some brown stuff on the noses of some of the Lefties here. Uh, could you guys maybe wipe it off, because it is kind of hard not to stare at it. . . Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter 303. “Contrary to the majority of the comments on your site” ~~ You did write ‘majority” and like Obama, you must know better than the “majority”. “It was a significantly low turnout (therefore much whiter, much older demographic)” ~~ Just 36.4 percent of the voting-eligible population cast ballots as of last election, continuing a steady decline in midterm voter participation that has spanned several decades. So if the “much whiter, much older demographic”, had not turned out, do you think the election would have a different outcome? You can’t blame the lack of voter turn out on “much whiter, much older demographic” or the results, at least they turned out. Which is more than I can say for any other demographic and I might add their right & privilege. Just because it doesn’t match your idea of whom should have turned out, doesn’t invalidate the results. The democrats didn’t get their message out and republicans didn’t have a message. The turn out is pretty good considering there was no message for the “much whiter, much older demographic”. However, this so called “much whiter, much older demographic” did signify a repudiation of his programs. Obama lost the Senate by almost 8 seats, soon to be 9 and now 32 Republican governors in 2015 and a 12 seat republican gain in the house, which was already a republican majority. So not only was it a repudiation of his programs, it was a reckoning and smack down (full frontal). ” apparently low information voters” & “watch too much Fox News and listen to too much talk radio” ~~ is an oxymoron. See Fox Ratings below, by these numbers, Fox seems to be the only network who gets the information out. Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s) FOXN 3,109 693 1,252 CNN 1,017 358 448 MSNBC 1,180 250 501 CNBC 281 102 136 FBN 68 22 27 HLN 354 119 167 http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/11/21/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-november-20-2014/330141/ 304. Joan said: “As a physician, I feel qualified to say that health care must be a right not a privilege. As another physician, I feel qualified to say that physicians like Joan are arrogant and poorly educated outside of their field. 305. @Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter . . . . lol. Please get back on Twitter. 306. Gary T says: Negative rights vs Positive rights. These economic concepts are known to all libertarian children, who are taught them at an early age and never get confused. To assert a positive right, like a right to education, or a right to health care, necessarily means someone will pay for it. If it is not the recipient, who it does not have to be since it is a right, then it will be paid for by someone else. As Pogo observes, physician look at the world through their own peculiar tunnel vision. When you say that health care is a right, you are also saying that health care is a involuntary servitude by someone else. 307. @GaryT Well, if a physician says that health care is a right, they are also saying that they expect the government to pay them money for providing the service. That is kind of a conflict of interest. Personally, I think health care is a right, too, and maybe more of a privilege for a citizen, but I don’t get any of the money, directly. But I think it is kind of cheesy when a doctor says it. Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter 308. Gary T says: SF When something is a right that requires a service to be provided, then someone has to pay for it. If it is the government providing the funds, then they are merely acting as a proxy for the compulsion of someone else provide the funding for the service. If you are ok with compelling people to pay for other people’s services, then so be it, but that is why all libertarian theory is fundamentally against the institution of any positive rights. (That is not exactly correct, libertarians do expect a few positive rights, but they are all related to protection of personal integrity from against others.) 309. Doody Kravitz, conservative on social points and progressive on the economy? How does progressive on economy work? Thank you for “Ain’t Got No Home” made famous by Rush Limbaugh. Rush is probably not revered here. Lawyers, yes, many of us are not lawyers. That doesn’t mean we don’t pay attention to what our courts are doing. I was stunned when Roberts voted on ACA. I’ve seen judges send things back to correct wording. Why didn’t he do that? Every euphemism for tax should have been changed to tax. Would it have passed again? No. What I have learned on this site is lawyers don’t agree on what laws mean. And attacks on JT, accusing him of doing this for political reasons. How can anyone listen to him and not understand the love he has for the basis of our country? Inga, as a conservative I have had many events in the last six years make me as mad as hell. But, your anger seems to be increasing. What is one is done. Next we wait for the courts. 310. Nick Spinelli says: Pogo, One of the many things I like about you is how you downplay your expertise. 311. Nick Spinelli says: ChipS, I think we all have a right to transportation. We should be given free public transportation in big cities and autos and free repairs in suburbs and rural areas. Transportation is a right, not a privilege. And, you know what, some socialists here are saying, “Yes!” I think attorneys salaries should be capped @ 78k.. adjusted annually for inflation. The auto mechanics should get 92k. 312. Nick Spinelli says: As I read over this thread the song, “Lookin’ For Love” was playing over and over in my head. Funny how songs just get stuck in your head. Any ideas why?? 313. Joan, after every presidential election where a new person is elected, congressional leaders are asked questions. Then answers are taken out of context. Obama had the best deal. Congress was his party. If you are a Republican, defeated, your leaders need to keep you in the game. So they say where they can they will stop him on certain issues. Health care. Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. We thought him wrong on his ideas and said so. What else would you expect? 314. Mmmm, government cars! 315. Nick Spinelli says: “G-cars” are what Fed employees call the cars they drive on the job. From the blue ‘G’ license plates on all of them 316. Gary T says: Nick, It is still quite possible that the court will find there is no standing. Essentially it is the legislative branch of the government suing the executive branch of government. I don’t think there is much precedent for something like this. And certainly there is a remedy available to the legislature even without this lawsuit, impeachment. I believe that all that is being sought in the lawsuit can also be achieved by impeachment, and conviction. But impeachment sounds much scarier than a lawsuit, hence where we sit. My odds that the court will find legal standing for this lawsuit is 70%. 317. earsoftheworld says: She first establishes her base line, defining the mob as “an irrational, childlike, often violent organism that derives its energy from the group. Intoxicated by messianic goals, the promise of instant gratification, and adrenaline-pumping exhortations, mobs create mayhem, chaos, and destruction, leaving a smoldering heap of wreckage for their leaders to climb to power.” Hmm, sounds like the teaparty to me. 318. Observer says: Joan, your comment should also be shown on FoxNews when they show the gruberisms of high information voters like Gruber and yourself. The tone of your comment shows the contempt you have for the voters/people who do not agree with you. What if in the next 5-10 years you realize that you were wrong? Has that never happened to you before? 319. Here is something hilarious for a Saturday afternoon: 10 Legal Scholars Defending Immigration Action Have Democratic Ties!!! Of the 10 legal scholars, seven are registered Democrats. Two live in states that don’t release party affiliation, but they both donate exclusively to Democratic candidates. The lone Republican, Eric Posner, is also an exclusive Democratic donor and has repeatedly written that Obama can literally “do whatever he wants” when it comes to executive authority. Three of the scholars work at the University of Chicago, where Obama taught constitutional law. One scholar, Lee Bollinger, is the president of Columbia University, where Obama did his undergrad work. Bollinger is also directly involved in the effort to make Columbia the site of Obama’s presidential library. Walter Dellinger, another letter writer, served in the Clinton administration and is friends with Justice Elena Kagan, who was nominated by Obama. Then, there’s Laurence Tribe, a mentor to Obama at Harvard Law School, who called him “the best student I ever had and the most exciting research assistant.” He also campaigned for Obama. There is a video at the link. This was on Megyn Kelly last night. Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter 320. Observer says: I doubt the MSM will ever do this investigation. The thing I find the most problematic is that Harvard has a professor who had endorsed Obama during his campaign, and for him now to sign on this letter shows that he is clueless how he may come across due to this history of his support of the president. I think Gruber should have also signed this letter. I really think these ivy league professors are living in a bubble with no clue about the real world. Wonder if Mr Tribe has actually tried a case recently. 321. 2014 says: 322. earsoftheworld, you can’t seriously believe the people in the tea party would do these heinous things. If you do, get help. There are lots of things/people I don ‘t like, but I don’t compare them to violent mobs. This is one of my issues with liberals. They jump to irrationality in a flash. Pelosi calls JT “a TV lawyer” and Reid says Romney never paid taxes. I could not support that stupidity. Lots of people don’t like some tea party candidates, but don’t smear them as you do. I plan to attend a tea party event when I can to see for myself. I find that to be the best way to find out about anything. 323. 2014 says: I saw JT on Fox News recently. I believe he had said that the EO on immigration will not be constitutional, as it will exceed the legal power. If I understood it right, then shouldnt it be added as another example of lawless behavior with this lawsuit? 324. Squeaky, here we go. Who cares what those 10 lawyers think? This is typical liberal lead the lemmings over the cliff. Tomorrow, 50 lawyers decry Obama’s overreach. And on we go. Does anybody know specifics? He said once, must speak English. Still true? Since he decided it he’ll probably ask a department to write the rules instead of working with Congress as he should, and don’t yell about partisanship! Partisanship is a fact. However, I believe the Congress would work to avoid the chaos of ACA. He’s doing this because he knows JT will win his case. Working with Congress and no leaks from either side might prove it can work it has for 43 Presidents. It can with 44. 325. Observer says: Sandi, this guy has a personality flaw that makes him scoff at people with whom he needs to work with. The same flaw that makes him laugh and play golf a minute after talking about beheading of a live human. This is a problem that I think will be hard to overcome for him. 326. Observer says: Cringeworthy ! Just imagine the mindset that can behave like that. 327. Hmmm. This kind of deck stacking does kind of tickle my Muse. . . Venue Practice To Deceive??? An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm The President needed a quorum Of scholars of law to be for him. But, with bad rationales, One must call on one’s pals! Don’t they call this stuff shopping the forum??? Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter Note. For non-legal people, <i< shopping the forum means: Forum shopping is a practice adopted by litigants to get their cases heard in a particular court that is likely to provide a favorable judgment. http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/forum-shopping/ 328. Congratulations, you are know officially living on the Taxpayers Teat. 329. zedalis says: Congratulations, you are now an official suck on the taxpayers teat 330. zedalis says: Pick one. Sorry 331. ?? says: On page 4 can there be an addition of Item #C: Immigration related EO? 332. That was actually quite good Squeeky.😉 333. @Olly Thank you!!! I am glad you liked it! Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter 334. The Obama & Liberal Press incest family. . . no wonder he had the press in his back pocket . . . . ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, National Security Adviser. CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications. ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to recent White House Press Secretary Jay Carney ABC News and Uni-vision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides. National Barack Channel is owned by the White House. MSNBC Alex Wagner is married to Obama administration’s senior adviser Sam Kass, currently the president’s senior nutrition policy adviser. Sure does redefine “Incestuous” let alone conflict of interest. Nepotism be damned. Looks like a common gene pool that needs a heavy shot of Clorox. How can the message go wrong when you have friends like this in the media. However, I wonder why these networks refuse to run the amnesty announcement and the explosive John Gruber’s confessions of a liberal elitist x6. I feel for Prof. Turley because he’s about to be excoriated by the incestuous media by proxy of the Obama administration. 335. Observer, how about we ask our liberal friends if this would bother them when we have a Republican President? 336. Observer says: Sandi, dont need to ask, just look at what maher had to say about lying or breaking the constitution: these people are so clueless about what they are doing to THEMSELVES when they defend the similar actions from this president. 337. @Observer ~ yes and read this one too. I purchased her book and it gave me chills down my spine. Watergate was nothing compared to this. But we have media who help Obama subvert justice. That’s why I said this government scares me. I donated$500 to a national Republican candidate in 2008. I was audited in 2010 & 2011. I’ve never been audited in my life, have a CPA who does the taxes. They said I owed them $3,200 dollars. I sent it, to an office in Cincinnati and then 6 months later got a check back from the government with the same amount. Go figure! A lot others in my town in were being audited too and they also gave to republican campaigns. I think this IRS harassment goes beyond just Conservative groups. I think they got the names of all whom donated to Republican candidates and targeted them. http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/21/white-house-justice-sought-stop-attkissons-reporting-fast-furious-scandal-documents-reveal/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social 338. BarkinDog says: The debate in the courts will come quickly to the issue of standing to sue. The Congress is one branch. It is made up of two legs: House and Senate. Both the House and Senate consist of elected members who come from two opposite parties. The House passed a resolution to file this lawsuit. Only Republicans voted for it. The Senate did not pass a resolution. So the Complaint filed in federal court stands on one leg (House) in which half the toes are missing. A guy like Bernie Sanders might move to intervene as a member of the Senate and oppose the remedy sought and the theory promulgated in the Complaint. The Executive Branch defendants can raise this issue and should. Now, since I first raised this issue many comments back there has been a lot of ranting on the comments. In a prior life as a human I lived near Saint John and James Elementary School in Ferguson, MO. The kids from that school sang a song which is appropriate to the rants here: (music to Glory Glory Halluluhya) Glory Glory Halaluya! Sister hit me with a ruler! I beaned her in the bean… With a rotten tangerine! And school kept marching On! Now I don’t know how to spull hallaluya and don’t know nuthin bout birthin babies and I hate to inject nuns into the discussion here. But Jeso the quibbling is not getting us to a good discussion of the topic. Oh, and 8th Day Dog Adventists are against socialized medical care and that includes Supreme Court justices who get free medical care for life and Congressmen and women. Eat right and cut more artFays and you will stay healthier. 339. Dust Bunny Queen says: Pick one. Sorry @ Zedalis Write them in English so we can pick. 340. Observer says: @Jetttexas, That is really bad. I even sometimes think that it is not safe to express our criticism of this administration on this blog. 341. You know, over the past few months, I have heard commenters declare that free education is a right (about$9,000/year/student), free healthcare is a right, the government should pay for health care (I’m already paying $900/mth for a family of 3 and$6,0000/person deductible), free birth control is a right, regardless of socioeconomic status.

So . . . how many hundreds of thousands of dollars did we just suddenly start spending per person in the US?

And, we will pay for this how?

Saul Alinsky did preach how to overburden a capitalist economy until it imploded, replaced by a socialist economy. And we all know how those turn out. Stale government bread won’t taste very good.

I’m all for a humane solution for health care for the poor, including free prophylactics. But when someone starts throwing free stuff out of a campaign van, declaring it’s free for everyone, and it won’t cost a dime, be smart enough not to believe him. Or her.

342. @Barkindog . . . lets not forget the Democrats completely shut out the Republicans in all aspects of the ACA/Obamacare law. In this case, all Republican toes were missing in both house & senate. Pay backs are a beetch. People are very angry about this ACA and how the whole thing was passed.

The attitude I get in America after the last election is. . .

America is coming and H3ll’s coming with them!
You hear! H3ll’s coming with them ~ 01-01-15!
😉

343. BarkinDog says:

What is H3ll? I know what H two O is. But is H2II mean H two three? Or is that an LL? Or is it House Bill 311? Or Holy Three Two Eyes?

344. lol, h-e-l-l. Didn’t want to put a bad on there and get kicked off the blog.

345. BarkinDog says:

If the RepubliCons repeal Obamacare then I want to demand that they repeal free medical care for members of both chambers of Congress and all of the federal judges. Turnabout is fair play. Let Boner smoke his three packs a day and get cancer and pay for his battle with cancer himself and not on my dime. Nothing is free when the money comes out of my taxes. End the VA Hospitals as they know it. End Medicare for the old. End Medicaid for the homeless. The RepubliCons got elected on these promises and now by Dog let us hold them to it.

346. Prairie Rose says:

Inga,
I, too, had errands and some family obligations. Saturdays are for catching up on all things left unfinished throughout the week!

““The relevant text requires that the President “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” … As McConnell himself notes, both Republican and Democratic Justice Departments have consistently opined that the clause authorizes a president even to decline enforcement of a statute altogether, if in good faith he determines it to be in violation of the Constitution.”

I disagree with McConnell and those Justice Departments. It sounds to me like such handling of the law will become one of whim eventually, manipulated for political ends.

Also, the phrase “to faithfully execute” indicates that something must be fully implemented or finished, carried out, accomplished. None of those words mean something should only be partway done or left undone. If a law is in violation of the Constitution, then it should have been vetoed, overturned by the Supreme Court, or repealed by the Legislative Branch–not just ignored or changed to fit the desires of the president.

Baby is fussing and it’s time for bed. Til later…

347. Well, today me and my mother had time to go out and buy new guns in case the Ferguson riots spread this far. Which I doubt. But if it does, we are ready for the thugs. I got some really kewl bullets for my new gun. But whew are they expensive. But I now have my very own 357 gun!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

348. xyz says:
349. Congress has to establish that it cannot stop or remedy executive actions through legislation. Additionally, Congress must show it has made a previous attempt to address the executive action (see Goldwater v. Carter and Kucinich v. Obama). Evidence must be presented that any failures are not simply a result of an inability to overcome political opposition to potentially effective remedies.

Congress has made no attempt to legislatively reverse Obama’s deadline changes, Boehner never had the guts to legislate adherence to the original schedule.

Swing and a miss… but a good way to get your name in the papers.

350. zedalis:
And as I said, another more direct remedy available to Congress is impeachment.

The court may just say that outright as to both standing and the relief requested — You want to rein in his actions based upon violations of his office? You already have the power, and Constitutionally provided avenue, of impeachment, and that is the alternate, less remarkable remedy to achieve the relief sought in the lawsuit.

351. Nick Spinelli says:

xyz, I just watched that compelling interview of Attkisson on C-Span. THANKS. I have her book on my kindle. It’s on deck. I’m currently reading Jim Gaffigan’s book on food, which is hilarious. I like to do the ying/yang thing when reading. Her book will be the perfect yang to Gaffigan’s ying.

I hope some of the cultists watch this hour long interview. My quixotic nature still hopes that they will have an epiphany that their cult leader is not who they think he is. I know, I know!!

352. swarthmoremom says:

Uh, ahem, uh, pardon. . .but . . .Obama appears to have left some brown stuff on the noses of some of the Lefties here. Uh, could you guys maybe wipe it off, because it is kind of hard not to stare at it. . .

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter Classy.. ….cultists and brown stuff……. Time for me to quit reading this blog…. It has become a bad old habit.

353. Nick Spinelli says:

Liberals like to dominate. When they don’t or can’t, they flee. You’ll be back. I see glimpses of honesty in you, SWM. No philosophy has the market cornered on truth.

354. SWM,
And for some unknown reason you found her comment significant enough to give it further life. If that were a legitimate reason to quit reading a blog then not many folks would remain.

355. Felix says:
356. It hasn’t always been the case where our government ruled by precedent; or more specifically the precedent of ignoring the constitutional authority they took an oath to “support and defend”. One would think it of paramount importance to follow the original intent of the architect of the constitution, but then that would require a degree of humility uncommon in today’s political class. This veto by Madison is THE precedent by which our government should function. Here is part of it:

“To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms “common defense and general welfare” embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared “that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.” James Madison’s veto of The Bonus Bill 1817

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

357. nicks@10:11

Liberals like to dominate.
=============================

coming from you that’s too funny.

look at the five threads above this and see how many times you’re one (or more) of the first five comments.

358. But it’s all for the greater good; right?

“In conclusion, I can make you this promise: If you like your weak economy, you can keep your weak economy.” Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Economic Productivity by Casey Mulligan (University of Chicago)

359. xyz says:

Nick, to me the media is THE reason that a president can get away with a bad character and elected and reelected. A president with a good character can control the primitive impulses, but if that integrity is not there then the constitution suffers. By the way, it is our constitution that, in my opinion, created the environment that brought Einsteins to the US. I find it very sad that I have not seen more people like JT coming forward to expose the lawlessness. I want a lawsuit people vs media of the US.

360. xyz,
I agree we would benefit greatly if the media would act as the fourth pillar and not the mouthpiece of government. That being said, the fatal mistake is believing every person elected, at least in “your” party, has the necessary “good” character for the place.

I posted a veto from Madison above but your post makes me think that even the framers of this government had to campaign and prove they were worthy of the job.

361. xyz says:

This is CNN (self absorbed “journalists” and mouthpiece for administration):

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/11/23/Lindsey-Graham-Benghazi-Report-full-of-crap

anyone else has a problem with the anchor’s tone, does she look like a journalist or an agent of this administration? By the way, why no one confronted the president in a press conference about what he had said in the debate to Romney and what he had actually said to CBS, in the portion of the interview that they had concealed at that time ( link i posted above of C=span interview with Sharyl A). Does journalism stops after election and people dont have to be held accountable for what they say and do?

362. Nick Spinelli says:

xyz, I think the MSM is so in the tank they HAVE to take it in the ass from this Administration. They have been punked like a newbie inmate. Once a thug has punked you, they OWN you. Obama and the Chicago thugs OWN the MSM. They’re complicit as Attkisson is proving. I think the feces will eventually hit the fan, but not until their cult leader is playing golf as a private citizen.

363. XYZ ~

I listened to that interview. I also read the Intelligence Report and find it to be suspect. Democrat or Republican, the intelligence committee isn’t innocent here. I can’t help but feel, their covering up for someone. On the other hand, this trip by Ambassador Stephens was not planned well. I also believe he was doing a arms deal or gun running with Turkey. I think both parties are involved in it or had knowledge of it and that report is covering up for someone. It was bad intelligence or the Ambassador and three other people would be alive today.

@Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter ~

Good for you to take up arms to protect yourself. I don’t know the laws in Missouri but here is a link: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/missouri.pdf

Always remember if they are coming at you, or break into your house, you can shoot. Don’t shoot a person in retreat or chase them down to shoot them, unless they have shown deadly force. In other words, they have a gun or one pointed at you or a family member.

Don’t shoot through a door or window. Always keep your finger off of the trigger, unless you intend to fire. Your home is your property and your car is an extension of your home. If your car gets broken into, think carefully about using deadly force, shooting someone for running off with property isn’t worth it. Let them have it, you can replace it. I’m not a lawyer but do know guns laws in my state.

Keep your gun in whatever room you are in, because you never know where the break-in might occur and you want to have it handy. A person can still kill you with a knife running at you from 20 ft away, you won’t be able to draw fast enough to stop them, so keep that in mind. I hope you don’t have to deal with any chaos caused by Ferguson, but you did the right thing by getting a gun. Look at it as helping the cops protect yourself, until they can get there to help you. Stay safe!

364. @Jettexas

Thank you for the advice! I also have a 5 shot 38 that I carry in my purse wherever I go. The 357 gun is too big to carry around, so it is for home defense. My mother bought a real cute little 6 shot 32 caliber gun. He said she could not really manage a bigger one. For mine, the gun guy sold me some really cool bullets that are called “FTX”. They have shiny metal on the end of them, with little groove thingies. He says it has “stopping power.” But the darn things are like a $1 per bullet! I also have an AK47 that my father gave me a few months ago, but it is for like if there is a really big riot, or if a motorcycle gang invades the neighborhood, or there really is ever a zombie apocalypse. On top of that I have a machete, an aluminum baseball bat, and a wooden sword that I stole from my last boyfriend. Plus, I kind of have a mean streak when I need it. Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter 365. Inga says: 366. Inga says: Seriously, a little paranoia about possible rioting? Keep the guns in the same room with you? Really? How many kids accidentally shoot themselves with their paranoid parents’ guns? 367. Dust Bunny Queen says: Good advice Jettexas. shooting someone for running off with property isn’t worth it. Let them have it, you can replace it This is especially true. You can replace stuff. It isn’t worth it to get into a conflict. We have our armaments handy in case of stranger danger. Mossberg 500 Persuader for home defense. You don’t have to be very precise with that gun if you are in a defensive inside the house position. Sorry about the drywall😦 I don’t go outside at night unless I am armed. Again shotgun or maybe hand gun. Due to the threat of mountain lions and other predators. It is really really dark at night here. The hunting rifles and hunting shotguns are kept in a gun safe. When you have children in the house, you do need to be especially careful about keeping guns away from children. PLUS you need to educate your children about guns at a very early age so they know that they are not toys and not to touch things that do not belong to them. That goes for more than just guns. Keep your grimy hands off of my stuff…..or something like that. The kids need to learn boundaries. Guns are tools. The same as chainsaws, skillsaws, rotohammers, nail guns any other power tool. Misused, they can cause injury. People who are afraid of guns are basically uneducated and ignorant about them. 368. Nick Spinelli says: Women are much more responsible w/ firearms than men. I have great respect for women who ignore the hand wringers and take steps to protect themselves and their children. It looks like Squeeky, Jet and DBQ are not one to let PC influence them or the ridicule of other women who tell them guns are bad. You are the real feminists, not depending upon the kindness of strangers or donut eating cops to protect you. Squeeky, consider a wooden bat. They pack a more powerful punch, but are a bit heavier than aluminum. But, I’m sure you have the limbs to swing it! 369. Inga says: A society would benefit greatly from more kindness of strangers than more guns. 370. Nick, Maybe that wasn’t an anti-gun statement but a rather sick attempt to defend pro-choice. 371. Inga says: Perhaps if we cared more about children already born we would be a better society also. But of course it’s far more important to own guns and keep them near and dear. 372. Nick Spinelli says: Olly, Bingo! It was a pleasant Sunday morning and afternoon anyway. Thinking of the “thankful” post of raff’s, we can all be thankful for that at least. 373. Inga says: I’m grateful that the men in my life aren’t disgusting cads and have enough sense not to talk about things in vulgar graphic ways on a general public forum. 374. “As Stephen Miller asks: “What’s Obama’s historical legacy if everything he does can be undone via executive order?” Look at the bind he has put his party in. If their entire agenda is enacted by executive fiat, then everything depends on an unbroken string of victories in presidential campaigns. One lesson from all those science fiction dystopias is that the dictator’s power grab always breeds discontent and rebellion. In two years, a lot of Democrats could be looking around at the wreckage of their agenda and cursing the day they embraced the temporary illusion of unilateral executive power.” http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/21/president-palpatine-obama-dissolves-the-old-republic/ 375. Well, I don’t have any kids sooo I don’t have to worry about it. My sister has a couple, but they don’t play with anybody else’s guns. Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter 376. @swm In your comment at 9:53 AM above, you said: “Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter Classy.. ….cultists and brown stuff……. Time for me to quit reading this blog…. It has become a bad old habit.” Oh my goodness, but if that is all it takes to make you quit reading, then maybe it isn’t what I said, but your conscience speaking to you. I imagine that it is kind of hard to support people like Gruber when they spill the beans about Obamacare. And it can’t be fun to pretend that you haven’t noticed that video that Gary T put above at 6:53pm yesterday where Obama says 25 times that he can’t do what he just did. Here’s the video again: http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/11/19/caught-camera-obama-called-exec-immigration-action-illegal-25-times?intcmp=ob_article_footer Then, add to that all the “you can keep your plan” lies. And the mysterious disappearing IRS emails, and the blatant lies about the Benghazi video complete with a public arrest of the video maker, and the failure to prosecute the big banker types. Or the race baiting, and incitement of mobs like in Ferguson. That is a whole lot of stuff to have to ignore and pretend doesn’t exist. Yes, that could make a liberal Democrat long for a forum where they don’t talk about such things! Where you can listen to your own leftist versions of Joel Osteen telling you how wonderful and smart and tolerant you are! Why I bet you can even find a forum where they have propaganda experts who somehow don’t talk about Jon Gruber and his revelations! Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter 377. Inga says: That’s a relief. 378. Prairie Rose says: Inga, Regarding your link to Nancy Pelosi’s statement: Nancy Pelosi insulted Professor Turley in her first sentence. She is a highly partisan person who has not demonstrated that she is at all concerned about civil liberties, unlike Professor Turley who is. I would be more likely to consider what Udall, Wyden or Angus King have to say about the lawsuit. “The Supreme Court just last month went a long way toward requiring federal courts to trust the government agencies that execute the laws to interpret for themselves just what authority Congress has given them in their areas of official activity. What an agency decides is the range of its power, that ruling said, should be given considerable deference by the courts.” That ruling is unwise. Government agencies are run by unelected people whose agendas are who-knows-what. If they get to interpret for themselves what their authority is, then a great deal of government overreach can occur without our ability, as voters, to reign it in (or even know about it). Think of the National Security Agency (and other security/defense agencies)–do you really want them determining the extent of their authority? While the military is not an agency, I think of the generals who want to use the 2001 AUMF, intended for the war in Afghanistan, to further pursue war in the ME. (http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/17/astoundingly_disturbing_obama_administration_claims_power) Most people are primed to expand the borders of their little fiefdoms, and that’s not a development that I want to see. 379. Thank God for Engineers !! Nice summary by a Purdue engineer. Here are the 10,535 pages of ObamaCare condensed to 4 sentences… As humorous as this may sound…..every last word of it is absolutely TRUE! 1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to uninsure the insured. 2. Next, we require the newly uninsured to be re-insured. 3. To re-insure the newly uninsured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured. 4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became uninsured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original uninsured can be insured, which will be free of charge to them. This, ladies and gentlemen, is called “redistribution of wealth” … or, by its more common name……… SOCIALISM. 380. @Olly Good find! Hilarious! Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter 381. Nick Spinelli says: Go Boilermakers. 382. Nick Spinelli says: Squeeky, SWM will be back. She’s just being a drama queen, we have a few of them here. One is still stuck in middle school mode. 383. I’m glad you liked it Squeeks! 384. @NickS I know. But my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., an attorney, is here with her boyfriend watching the Cowboys game, sooo I am sitting on the couch with my laptop and a margarita and need something to do during the commercials. Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter 385. Inga says: And one is stuck in potty training mode. 386. @NickS A German word for nurse is “krankenschwester” sooo you might find an Irish Poem here on another thread about a nurse titled, “Krankenstein”. . .It seems even funnier to me after a few margaritas. Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter 387. Nick Spinelli says: Wasted away again in Margaritaville! Remember, don’t comment while intoxicated. 388. Nick Spinelli says: LOL! 389. Nick Spinelli says: She boycotts Darren’s threads. She is angry @ him. 390. @NickS Why??? He’s the best poster on here. His articles are always good, and he doesn’t let partisanship interfere with what he writes. I always learn something new from his stuff. Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter 391. Nick Spinelli says: Squeeky, Squeeky, Squeeky, Look @ how normal and civil his post’s threads are. Who cares why?? Just enjoy the peace and sanity. 392. Msjettexas says: Y’all are making me laugh out loud. Olly, that’s funny and true. Squeaky Fromm ~ That’s great that you have your CHL. I have a 357mag., and love to shoot it. I have a .45 Rem 1911, 9mm Ruger, two shot guns and a rifle with a scope and one long whip! Both of my daughter’s each have 9mm Rugers. We belong to a very nice gun club and go shooting once a week as a family. I went to CHL class with my older one, she didn’t want to go by herself, she’ll have her license as soon as she qualifies. Both daughters shoot a lot better than me. You are so right, it’s best to teach kids about guns, so they won’t be curious about them. You keep a gun in every room, if you can, because you will always know where your gun is. You have a great collection. I had an uncle murdered and just a few months ago, a close friends daughter was murdered. Because both were sitting ducks to bad guys whom always get their hands on guns. When the bad guys know you can’t have a gun, they love that! I’ll be damned if my daughters or myself will ever be a helpless victim. Tired of Liberals demonizing guns, like they jump up and shoot people on their own. Mental illness is what needs to be addressed. Since ISIS uses machetes to kill people with, will Liberals outlaw those too? Cars can be used as weapons! Liberals have ambiguous beliefs, they do everything possible to stop smoking, even in public because it’s bad for you and others around you. Yet, they pass Cannibus laws, like that isn’t smoke and also bad for you and others? I could go on and on. Lol I agree with most of you, in that Professor Turley is being judged, for taking this case on. How can people get upset at anyone who backs the Constitution? The ones who are mad at him or give him a lecture like he’s been a bad boy, should be ashamed. He’s still a Liberal, he just has principles and I admire him for bucking those and doing the right thing. If he ran as a Democrat for President, he has my vote, because he has principles. That’s rare! 393. Darren Smith says: Olly, yes, thank God for Engineers. They can further concentrate those four sentences down to one number: 4/10535 Unfortunately, 4 out of 3 people do not understand fractions. 394. Darren Smith says: Thank you. For the past couple hours I’ve watched interviews with Salvador Dalí. Two thoughts come to mind. I finally understand the usage of watches in his works, and I’m glad for everyone’s sake I already wrote this weekend’s articles. 395. Inga, calling the little boy’s shooting accidental isn’t accurate in my book. If he could get the gun, that’s negligence. 396. Inga says: Sandi, yes I’d agree it was negligence. I think it’s negligent to keep a gun in the same room with a person with children in the house, unlocked, for ease of access in case hordes of looters or rapists break down one’s door. 397. BarkinDog says: The Constitutional Daily also thinks that Standing To Sue may be a problem for the House lawsuit. Here is part of the article: Turley’s suit claims the Obama administration illegally postponed a requirement that companies with 50 or more employees offer health coverage to full-time employees or pay penalties, and also that the Obama administration will give away about$175 billion to insurance companies under the law as part of a program called cost-sharing reductions.

“In challenging these actions, this case addresses fundamental issues regarding limits of Executive power under our constitutional form of government, and the continued viability of the separation of powers doctrine upon which ‘the whole American fabric has been erected,’ ” the suit says.

One big barrier will be the constitutional requirement of standing to sue. The House leaders will need to prove that the House as an institution was injured by the Obama administration’s actions and the injuries can be fixed by the court.

In July, John Malcolm and Elizabeth Slattery from the Heritage Foundation summed up the legal roadblock in an in-depth research finding.

“The House will have to demonstrate to a court’s satisfaction that as an institution, it has been personally harmed by President Obama’s actions, which have effectively nullified the votes of its members, leaving it little recourse to rectify this injustice without court intervention,” they said. “Such a lawsuit would require the courts to police the limits of the political branches’ powers, and overcoming the natural reluctance of courts to get involved in disputes that have political overtones involving the other branches of government will not be easy.”

Another problem would be that the court could say that Congress has a way to redress the injuries allegedly suffered at the hands of President Obama – by impeaching him.

Back in 2011, 10 members of Congress did sue President Obama over his decision to use military force in Libya. According to a Congressional Research Service report from 2012, a reviewing federal district court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds due to lack of standing.

“While there may conceivably be some political benefit in suing the President and the Secretary of Defense, in light of shrinking judicial budgets, scarce judicial resources, and a heavy caseload, the Court finds it frustrating to expend time and effort adjudicating the relitigation of settled questions of law,” federal judge Reggie Walton said.

Judge Walton expressed dismay that the plaintiffs wanted “to achieve what appear to be purely political ends, when it should be clear to them that this Court is powerless to depart from clearly established precedent of the Supreme Court and the District of Columbia Circuit.”

Whether Judge Walton’s decision is an indicator of the current lawsuit’s future remains to seen, many legal observers believe the standing issue is critical to any effort by House Republicans to seek help from the courts going forward, and that a lawsuit from a state or an individual would “stand” a better chance with the standing issue.

398. BarkinDog says:

As we dogs say: Four legs good! Two legs baaaad!

The Congress has two legs. The House is one with many toes (members). Not all the toes are on board. That aspect of Standing is not discussed by the article.

But, I am just a dog and what do I know.

399. […] posted again when the House filed suit on Friday; however, he will be unable to provide many details of the case […]

400. Eric says:

Paul: “Bush took us to war in Iraq with bad intel, perhaps he lied. Congress bought those lies and gave him permission …”

That’s incorrect.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was triggered by UNMOVIC’s confirmation of Saddam’s continued material breach of the Gulf War ceasefire UNSC resolutions – not the pre-war intelligence.

Excerpt from my explanation of the law and policy basis of OIF at http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html :

Q: Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?

A: No.

One, the Iraq enforcement was compliance-based. President Bush’s presentation of intelligence did not and could not trigger OIF. By procedure, only Iraq’s noncompliance could trigger enforcement, and only Iraq’s compliance could switch off the enforcement.

The prevalent myth that Operation Iraqi Freedom was based on a lie relies on a false premise that shifted the burden of proof from Iraq proving compliance with the UNSC resolutions to the US proving Iraqi possession matched the pre-war intelligence estimates. In fact, neither the intelligence nor demonstration of Iraqi possession was a required element of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement because it pivoted solely on whether Iraq proved compliance with the UNSC resolutions. The US as the chief enforcer of the UNSC resolutions held no burden of proof in the Iraq enforcement. From the outset of the Gulf War ceasefire, Saddam as the probationary party held the entire burden of proof to prove Iraq was disarmed and compliant with the standard mandated by UNSCRs 687, 688, and related resolutions. The question of “Where is Iraq’s WMD?” was never for the US and UN to answer; it was always one of the questions Saddam was required to answer to the mandated standard in order to pass the compliance test.

OIF is often isolated out of context and misrepresented as a new policy by Bush. In fact, OIF was the coda of the US-led enforcement of the Gulf War ceasefire that began in 1991. President Bush inherited Saddam’s “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere” (Clinton) and carried forward the Iraq enforcement from President Clinton. Demonstration of Iraqi possession of WMD was not necessary to confirm Saddam’s noncompliance because, from the outset, Iraq’s guilt of possession was established in the factual baseline of the Gulf War ceasefire as the foundational premise of the disarmament process. The basic presumption of the disarmament process was anywhere Iraq provided deficient account of its weapons imputed continued possession. Thus, had Bush presented no intelligence on Iraq’s weapons, the compliance-based enforcement procedure would have been the same. Saddam was guilty until he proved Iraq was compliant. If Iraq was not compliant, then Saddam continued to be armed and dangerous.

Two, it is undisputed that Iraq was noncompliant at the decision point for Operation Iraqi Freedom. The main trigger for OIF was the UNMOVIC Cluster Document, which confirmed Iraq’s material breach and triggered OIF in March 2003 in the same way that the UNSCOM Butler Report triggered Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.
. . .
The compliance standard for Iraq was set by UNSC resolution (see, at minimum, UNSCRs 687, 688, and 1441) and enforced under US law (see, at minimum, P.L. 105-235 and P.L. 107-243). Pursuant to UNSCR 688 and related resolutions, numerous observers documented Saddam’s “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror” (UN Commission on Human Rights). Pursuant to UNSCR 687 and related resolutions, UNMOVIC reports throughout the UNSCR 1441 inspection period made clear Iraq had failed to sufficiently account for proscribed weapons, including stocks, and cooperate to the mandated standard along with other violations.

On March 7, 2003, the UNSCR 1441 inspection period concluded when UNMOVIC presented the 173-page Cluster Document to the UN Security Council and confirmed “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687” (UNSCR 1441) with “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” (Cluster Document):

UNMOVIC evaluated and assessed this material as it has became available and … produced an internal working document covering about 100 unresolved disarmament issues … [for example] UNMOVIC has credible information that the total quantity of BW agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 litres more than declared by Iraq [and] … With respect to stockpiles of bulk agent stated to have been destroyed, there is evidence to suggest that these was [sic] not destroyed as declared by Iraq.
… UNMOVIC must verify the absence of any new activities or proscribed items, new or retained. The onus is clearly on Iraq to provide the requisite information or devise other ways in which UNMOVIC can gain confidence that Iraq’s declarations are correct and comprehensive.

. . .
Bush cited properly to Iraq’s noncompliance with the UNSC resolutions as Clinton had done for ODF. But in a departure from Clinton’s public presentation, Bush also cited the pre-war intelligence, despite that the intelligence could not trigger enforcement. Propagandists pounced on Bush’s error of presentation to shift the burden of proof from Iraq proving compliance with the UNSC resolutions to the US proving Iraqi possession matched the pre-war intelligence estimates. However, the mistake does not change that Iraqi possession was established in the factual baseline of the Gulf War ceasefire as the foundational premise of the disarmament process. The only legal and reliable way to know Saddam had disarmed was Iraq proving compliance with the standard mandated by the UNSC resolutions enforced under US law. Saddam’s noncompliance – including Iraq’s basic failure to declare and destroy all its as-of-Gulf-War WMD under international supervision – was confirmed by UNMOVIC with the Cluster Document, which imputed the continued possession of proscribed weapons by Iraq, whereupon Bush properly applied the operative enforcement procedure at the decision point for OIF.

401. Eric says:

If you actually read the AUMF for Operation Iraqi Freedom – Public Law 107-243 (2002) – you’ll see that its framework is the record of Saddam’s noncompliance with the Gulf War ceasefire and situational context for Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Congressional authorization is to enforce the UNSC resolutions.

By the text of PL 107-243, Congress’s official position, OIF was right on the law.

You can read for yourself the US statutes and UNSC resolutions cited by Congress in PL 107-243, the UN findings at the decision point for OIF, as well as the post-war Iraq Survey Group findings. All of it’s on-line.

If you prefer not to read the sources, then I suggest this article that compared PL 107-243 to the facts:

402. Thank you, Eric. There are several people active on this site who allude to Bush lying. Not that anything will change, but the more they hear the truth it might sink in, eventually.

403. Eric says:

Sandi Hemming,

It’s important that we persist in setting the record straight on Operation Iraqi Freedom. The false narrative that the Iraq enforcement was “based on lies” (Turley) has metastasized into a corrupted premise in US politics like a virus in an infected operating system that has caused compounding harms in American domestic and foreign affairs.

Not that anything will change

For our nation’s sake, it needs to change – setting the record straight needs to happen.

On the problem’s face, the task should be simple to set the record straight. The primary sources of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement are easily accessed on-line and provide a straightforward explanation of the law and policy of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The UNSCRs, the US statutes enforcing the UNSCRs, the UN findings pursuant to the UNSCRs, Saddam’s record of noncompliance with the UNSCRs, and President Clinton’s whole-presidency struggle to enforce the UNSCRs plainly show the decision for OIF was right on the law and justified on the policy.

President Bush isn’t even the best president for studying the law and policy of OIF – President Clinton is. The Iraq enforcement matured under Clinton – Bush merely picked up Clinton’s case against Saddam for the coda of the Gulf War ceasefire.

Yet somehow, despite that the fact basis for OIF is in plain view and the Saddam problem was headline news for years with grim Clinton officials, the false narrative became prevalent. Even mission supporters commonly assume the false premise that shifted the burden of proof from Iraq proving compliance with the UNSC resolutions to the US proving Iraqi possession matched the pre-war intelligence estimates.

The prevalence of the false narrative in the zeitgeist, such that even people like Professor Turley assume it, proves the effectiveness of propaganda when wielded zealously by unprincipled partisans.

To set the record straight, I encourage you to learn my explanation of the law and policy basis of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html

More importantly, be conversant with the primary sources of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement. These basic essentials are linked in the ‘further reading’ section of my OIF FAQ:

Basic essentials for understanding OIF in the proper context include the 1990-2002 UNSC resolutions for Iraq (at minimum, see UNSCRs 687, 688, and 1441), Public Law 107-243 (the 2002 Congressional authorization for use of military force against Iraq), Public Law 105-235 (“Iraqi Breach of International Obligations”, 14AUG98), President Clinton’s February 1998 remarks on Iraq to Pentagon personnel and December 1998 announcement of Operation Desert Fox (the penultimate military enforcement step that set the baseline precedent for OIF), President Bush’s September 2002 remarks to the United Nations General Assembly and excerpts from the 2003 State of the Union, the April 2002 UN Commission on Human Rights situation report on Iraq pursuant to UNSCR 688, the March 2003 UNMOVIC Cluster Document (summary) pursuant to UNSCR 687 that triggered the final decision for OIF, and the Iraq Survey Group’s Duelfer Report.

You can find a larger table of sources here:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2004/10/perspective-on-operation-iraqi-freedom.html

Here’s an appetizer from President Clinton’s letter to Congress on the legal authority for Operation Desert Fox, December 18, 1998:.

At approximately 5:00 p.m. eastern standard time on December 16, 1998, at my direction, U.S. military forces conducted missile and aircraft strikes in Iraq in response to Iraqi breaches of its obligations under resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. … It [this action] is consistent with and has been taken in support of numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions, including Resolutions 678 and 687, which authorize U.N. Member States to use “all necessary means” to implement the Security Council resolutions and to restore peace and security in the region and establish the terms of the cease-fire mandated by the Council, including those related to the destruction of Iraq’s WMD programs. … I directed these actions pursuant to my authority under the Constitution as Commander in Chief and as Chief Executive, and to conduct U.S. foreign relations, as well as under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) enacted in January 1991.

Which goes to Paul’s mistaken notion that “Congress bought those lies and gave him permission …”. In fact, enforcing Iraq’s compliance with the UNSCRs was the law and policy basis of Operations Desert Storm, Desert Fox, and ultimately, Iraqi Freedom. Saddam’s noncompliance with the UNSCRs was true, continuous for over a decade, and confirmed at the decision point for OIF by the UN Commission on Human Rights and UNMOVIC Cluster Document.

The 2002 AUMF (PL 107-243), while politically prudent, was not legally necessary. The 1991 AUMF for the Gulf War (PL 102-1, pursuant to UNSCR 678) was equally live for President Bush in 2003 as for President HW Bush in 1991 and President Clinton in 1998.

404. CabStand says:

I hope you lose. Keep fighting. You provide another example why government cannot work.

405. Ron Suskind, “The Way of the World”, clearly shows that the Bush W administration actually did lie to prosecute the Iraq War, twice that he was able to prove, and I would say many times more than that that we are unable to prove.
The Iraqi War was stupid and emotionally based, and the American people were blatantly lied to in order to get them behind it. Just like Obama and the ACA.

406. Gary T says:

As most of the media and people here are recognizing what I said early on, the biggest challenge to this lawsuit will be standing.
If they can get past that, the suit may have some merit.
As I also said earlier, the court may rule that there are other legal avenues available, like impeachment, that are far more appropriate for the relief the plaintiffs are seeking.

407. Eric says:

Gary T,

Rather than rely on the likes of Ron Suskind or even my take, I suggest that you read for yourself the primary sources of the law and policy of Operation Iraqi Freedom that I recommended to Sandi Hemming at my comment on November 28, 2014 at 3:56 am. They’re linked here: http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html#furtherreading

The primary sources for OIF, eg, US statutes, UNSC resolutions, Presidential policy, and UN findings, provide a straightforward explanation plainly showing President Bush’s decision for OIF was right on the law and justified on the policy.

That said, did Bush make mistakes in his public presentation of the case against Saddam? Yes he did: President Bush should not have deviated from President Clinton’s public presentation of the case against Saddam. But Bush’s error of presentation did not, and by procedure could not, trigger OIF. OIF, by procedure, was triggered Saddam’s material breach of the Gulf War ceasefire UNSC resolutions enforced by the President under US law.

Four, the public controversy is over Bush’s presentation of intelligence on latter Iraqi NBC stocks and programs, yet the pre-war intelligence that Bush presented was simply the intelligence that was available. A partisan Democrat-slanted Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later analyzed pre-war statements by Bush administration officials and concluded they were largely “substantiated by intelligence”. Because of Saddam’s record, Clinton and Bush officials enforcing the Gulf War ceasefire were obligated to judge the intelligence in an unfavorable light for Iraq, and 9/11 compelled US officials to increase their wariness due to Saddam’s belligerence and guilt on terrorism. Congressmen, Democrats and Republicans, who independently reviewed the pre-war intelligence in light of Saddam’s record largely shared Bush’s determination.

At the same time, the imprecision of the intelligence on Iraq due to Saddam’s “denial and deception operations” (Duelfer Report) was a known issue early in the disarmament process and accounted for with Iraq’s presumption of guilt, burden of proof, and standard of compliance. Again, due in part to the success of Saddam’s “concealment and deception activities” (Duelfer Report), the “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere” (Clinton) was imputed from Iraq’s noncompliance, not from demonstrated Iraqi possession of WMD stocks. And again, the pre-war intelligence did not and could not trigger enforcement. By procedure, OIF was triggered by Iraq’s material breach of its obligations under the UNSC resolutions.

Bush’s mistakes were presenting the pre-war intelligence to the public inapposite of its actual, circumscribed role in the operative enforcement procedure and improperly characterizing the pre-war intelligence estimates as “evidence” when the normal and proper role of intelligence is indicators. To the credit of the intelligence agencies, the pre-war intelligence correctly indicated Saddam was violating the Gulf War ceasefire. Nonetheless, Bush should have followed Clinton’s precedent in the public presentation: for Operation Desert Fox, President Clinton had cited only to Iraq’s evident noncompliance in terms of insufficient cooperation and deficient account of weapons when he declared “Iraq has abused its final chance” and imputed Saddam’s “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere”. Clinton’s citation of noncompliance as the reason for bombing Iraq matched the operative enforcement procedure. When Clinton endorsed Bush’s Iraq enforcement, Clinton stayed consistent with his compliance-based justification for ODF by citing the threat, heightened by the 9/11 attacks, of Saddam’s “unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons”.

Bush cited properly to Iraq’s evident noncompliance with the UNSC resolutions as Clinton had done for ODF. But in a departure from Clinton’s public presentation, Bush also cited the pre-war intelligence, despite that the intelligence could not trigger enforcement. Propagandists pounced on Bush’s error of presentation to shift the burden of proof from Iraq proving compliance with the UNSC resolutions to the US proving Iraqi possession matched the pre-war intelligence estimates. However, the mistake does not change that Iraqi possession was established in the factual baseline of the Gulf War ceasefire as the foundational premise of the disarmament process. The only legal and reliable way to know Saddam had disarmed was Iraq proving compliance with the standard mandated by the UNSC resolutions enforced under US law. Saddam’s noncompliance – including Iraq’s basic failure to declare and destroy all its as-of-Gulf-War WMD under international supervision – was confirmed by UNMOVIC with the Cluster Document, which imputed the continued possession of proscribed weapons by Iraq, whereupon Bush properly applied the operative enforcement procedure at the decision point for OIF.

408. Eric says:

Fix: OIF, by procedure, was triggered by Saddam’s material breach of the Gulf War ceasefire UNSC resolutions enforced by the President under US law.