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)
TMI. LOL! Some witnesses don’t even require a question. I just walk in the door and start talking. Shutting them up is the challenge.
Karen, why it is so hard to understand that it is all Bush’s fault.
That’s Central time, not San Diego time.
Professor Turley takes the stand that should be obvious, and yet is unfortunately rare:
That one’s politics should have no bearing whatsoever on the rightness or wrongness of a politician’s actions. He might support the ACA, but his sense of justice does not support a Machiavelian, or tyrannical power grab to get it.
Why is this so hard to understand that we should not judge lawfulness through political glasses?
Since you are so nosy and intrusive Spinelli, he’s not coming over until he gets out of work and by the time he gets to my house it’ll be 6:30, so you can watch the clock.
Why have we become jaded at the idea that when citizens break the law, there are consequences, but when government employees or politicians break the law, there are not?
It’s considered outside the pale of reason that there should be any consequences for Obama defying the law and the separation of powers. For Lois Lerner using the IRS to target American citizens. For Eric Holder to be held in contempt of Congress. For the NSA to lie about spying. Etc. Etc.
There is this general uproar when people call for actual consequences for these actions, and for correcting the boat. Like these people are Teflon somehow.
Hope that poor kid gets supper.
Guess what Groty? Professor Turley has said he’s for national healthcare. Is he selfish too?
SWM:
Saul Alinsky openly advised his followers to lie to promote their cause.
So, anyone who defends Alinsky has the right to post here, but we all have the right to question these admittedly dishonest methods. It’s Machiavelian.
“That’s a pretty expensive “nothing” for taxpayers.”
So is amnesty, but that didn’t stop the socialists.
Marc:
I’ve worked with people who came here legally. They had to periodically return to their home country to renew their work visa. It was very disruptive but they persevered and followed the law to the letter. Then there are those that went through the looooooong process of becoming a legal citizen.
Shouldn’t all those people get refunds? Do you not have to pay if you are Mexican, or some other close neighbor? Is it rude for people who live geographically close to us to follow the rules?
Because I’m interested in how an amnesty supporter would explain this to all those legal immigrants who jumped through hoops for years, waited their turn, and paid their dues.
The fools. Didn’t they know no one has to follow the law? It was all a big waste of time and money!
Groty, he will have a press conference and will tell the justices who ruled in his favor or abstained (if that is possible) that he heard them and that he is really enjoying the press conference.
What if after the appeals you get a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court and Obama decides to ignore the ruling? After all, he has usurped the legislative branch’s authority, what makes you think he gives two figs what the judicial branch will say?
It is obvious to me that Democrats don’t care about the reasons why the separation of powers is crucial for the long term survival of the republic. They are driven by greed and only care passionately about making someone else pay for their healthcare. There are few, if any, principled Democrats who will vote to impeach Obama even if he ignores a judicial ruling.
What then? Do we go full banana republic with a temporary military coup d’état to restore order? Do people take to the streets in violent protest, Ferguson style? Things could get much uglier than they already are. What an unmitigated disaster this guy is and what the Democrat Party has become.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/11/21/republicans-finally-file-lawsuit-against-obama-and-stand-to-gain-almost-nothing/
“Republicans finally file lawsuit agains Obama, and stand to gain almost nothing.” That’s a pretty expensive “nothing” for taxpayers.
LOL! I used to be that fat, but those loafers?? Is that a family photo? Uncle Guido drinking wine in the back yard?
I hope he listens to you Nick. I know you can spot a troll from way off and are not afraid to point them out.
http://www.2uptop.com/sites/www.2uptop.com/uploads/images/Article%20Pics/chants/chant_114.jpg
Swarthmoremom,
Be careful with those commie dumplings! 🙂
Trooper, Darren has a great sense of humor. I’m fairly certain he’s fine w/ Munster’s and Mister Ed comments. I would hold off on the panda photos just yet.
Trooper, I’ll have to take your word on it, the photo is too dark.
Ron,
I find it increasingly hard to believe that Chief Justice Roberts will rediscover the actual wording of the Constitution, but instead will simply redefine more words (e.g, tax, not a penalty).