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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s never unfair to question. That is one of our strengths as a Democracy, no?
“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. 🙂
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.
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 .
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?
Cavuto asks “Why sue now, why didn’t you fix this years ago?!”
http://youtu.be/DcDoR-VHJ8Y
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.
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!
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?
@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.
Right on cue, and hit’s the marks every time.
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.
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.
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.
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.