Academia, Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Lawyering, Media, Politics, Society, Supreme Court

HOUSE FILES CHALLENGE OVER THE CHANGES TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

800px-Capitol_Building_Full_ViewToday, 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)

220px-Meade_and_Prettyman_Courthouse

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

  2. 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 .

  5. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. @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

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  18. 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.

Comments are closed.