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)
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%.
“G-cars” are what Fed employees call the cars they drive on the job. From the blue ‘G’ license plates on all of them
Mmmm, government cars!
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?
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??
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.
Pogo, One of the many things I like about you is how you downplay your expertise.
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.
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.)
@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
@Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter . . . . lol.
Please get back on Twitter. 🙂
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.
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.
“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/
http://theelephantgun.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/well_bye.jpg
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
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?
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!
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.
“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.”
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?
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.