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
Lead Counsel
Here is the Complaint: House v. Burwell (D.D.C.) – Complaint (FILED)
@2014
Amen to Megyn Kelly! I wish I could post a transcript of that first segment here.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Watch Kelly File, she is talking about balance of power. first segment was extremely powerful !
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.
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.”
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.
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.
@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!
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.
@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
@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:
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
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.
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.
@K20
They usually do not allow cameras in Federal court. Here is a link that kind of explains it:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Multimedia/Cameras/history.aspx
I suspect the judges don’t want to have to wear makeup??? 🙂
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
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.
@DBQ . . thumbs up.
And Sue is NOT me as Spinelli said she was. Again the IP address will tell the tale.
No. One. Cares.
🙂
Really.
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.
Thanks Squeeky. Another question, does federal court allow news channels to broadcast the proceedings?
god, there is a fight going on here, is there a psychiatrist in house to calm people down?
And Sue is NOT me as Spinelli said she was. Again the IP address will tell the tale.