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”

    1. 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.

  1. 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!

  2. Squeeky, Squeeky, Squeeky, Look @ how normal and civil his post’s threads are. Who cares why?? Just enjoy the peace and sanity.

  3. @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

  4. Wasted away again in Margaritaville! Remember, don’t comment while intoxicated.

  5. @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

  6. @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

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

    1. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. @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

Comments are closed.