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)
Sue, I saw your comment. It should have been removed because of your personal attack on JT.
One of the issues that are referenced in this suit is the illegal spending of tax payer funds. The Legislature is in control of appropriating funds…especially for something as vast as the ACA subsidies. Not the IRS. Not Obama.
There are also it seems some pending actions and suits on the behalf of the States regarding Obama’s Imperial Decree. Oklahoma is going to sue (I heard it on the news tonight). Other States are likely going to join in. Obama’s blanket amnesty, plus the chain immigration it will cause, and the huge financial burden that will be placed on the States to pay for all of these illegals who might decide to come out of the woodwork. I say might, because I know some illegals who are definitely not interested in becoming visible.
WHO is going to pay for all of Obama’s amnesty program? He can’t just pull money out of the budget (ha ha ha what budget) and he can’t appropriate money. Where is the money going to come from. Congress has the power to fund or de fund. I suggest that they use that power. It would be much more effective than a prolonged impeachment fight.
DBQ, no one cares that you don’t care. I care, liberal commenters here care. We deserve to be able to comment here without intimidation and intrusive comments directed toward us and our families personally in order to squelch our free speech. If these types of personal attacks were directed at you, you WOULD care. This is is a blog dedicated to free speech by all, even liberal commenters.
Would it be possible to cease these juvenile attacks between others?
I second Darren’s comment. There are important things happening. Serious things. Historic things. Please quit with all the junior high b.s. Stop referencing deleted comments. They are deleted and no one can see them anymore. For God’s sake. Grow up.
No. One. Cares.
Randy Dunn: “Where was Turley when Bush lied to start a war?”
Your premise is incorrect.
President Bush didn’t lie to start a war. Neither were Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom unConstitutional.
For OIF, see Public Laws 102-1 (1991), 105-235 (1998), and 107-243 (2002) enforcing UNSC Resolutions 678, 687, 688, 1441, etc, and the UNMOVIC Cluster Document that confirmed Iraq’s material breach of UNSCR 687 and related resolutions.
US law authorized the President to use military force to enforce the Gulf War ceasefire UNSC resolutions. UNSCR 1441 was “determined to secure Iraq’s full compliance” with the “final opportunity to comply” enabled by the US-led credible threat of regime change. At the decision point for OIF, UNMOVIC confirmed “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687” (UNSCR 1441) with “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” (Cluster Document). That was the trigger.
The law and policy of OIF are straightforward and plainly show Bush’s decision was right on the law and justified on the policy. Whether Bush made the wrong decision to follow through on the threat of regime change when Saddam failed the compliance test in his “final opportunity to comply” is a political question, not a Constitutional question.
See my answers to the questions, “Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?” and “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom legal?”, starting here:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html#didBushlie
“…it’s the original question.” Like to think I’m beyond this, but reading Prof’s words just made me cry like a baby. Praise the Lord…and pass the ammunition to Prof Turley to take his best shot.
@K20
Standing is kind of like if Bob and Mary are married. John comes along and files a divorce action saying Bob and Mary should be divorced. Huh??? Who is John to be filing a lawsuit for somebody else’s marriage to be ending??? He has no standing to file. (Unless he is acting in some sort of court sanctioned capacity, for example, if Mary is in a coma or something.) That is one aspect of standing. Wiki has a very good quick read on standing. Here is part of it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Ok let me admit first i have zero legal back ground, so if I ask something too “stupid”, keep that in mind;
1-I have heard that this case maybe rejected by the court even before it begins, why is that ? I mean what will be the reason? What is the JT counter argument about not having a “standing” (dont know really what that means either) ?
2- Could this lawsuit be filed directly in the supreme court?
I apologize to Professor Turley about this uproar, but a person can only tolerate so much. Please do not allow the person from that IP address to comment on this blog anymore. Your liberal commenters do not need to continuously be inmidated by tactics by such vile people. It is a way of stopping speech by those they disagree with. It’s disgusting and should not happen on a Consitutional law blog.
*on that thread that were directed at me*
* who is a liberal*
No Spnelli there were two comments tha wherein THA nread directed at me as YOU well know. One was regarding m heritage with some Nazi references and and the other was regarding my children, a threat. The IP address of that commenter tells the tale. You Spinelli are continually sayin every new person who Ipsa liberal is m sockpuppet, THAT is creepy and incredibly hypocritical considering what YOU have engaged in. You seriously should be ashamed of yourself. I’ve been harassed by you for two years now and it’s gong to stop. You need to protect your IP address if you are going to harass me on the Turley blog.
I feel harassed. I made NO comment today that was deleted. I REPORTED the comment in question IMMEDIATELY. It was deleted after I REPORTED IT, within 4 minutes. The comment in question was up less than 15 MINUTES TOTAL, early in the morning, but amazingly YOU saw it and commented on it ~5 MINUTES AFTER it was deleted!! JT knows all this. He thanked me for helping him get the comment and another 2 offensive comments on the same thread deleted quickly. Ask him!! I have the emails. This is childish and frankly, sadly desperate. Leave me alone and stop lying about me. I have STRONG suspicions on who posted that sockpuppet comment, but I have integrity and don’t make accusations w/o evidence. It was a middle school ploy, it failed miserably, and the more you talk the more guilty you appear!
Each man is his own absolute lawgiver and dispenser of glory or gloom to himself, the maker of his life, his reward, his punishment.
Obama chose his gloom, the bad part is, he’s forcing the American people to live the reality of it. As far as his glory, that has yet to be decided.
Spinelli, you need to realize your IP address is traceable.
Haz, LOL! What a difference. It’s incredible.
If this is a lawprof blog, when do we start discussing house pets?
LOL! Like I said, some witnesses just won’t stop talking. They often dissemble, embellish, just make stuff up, but they just keep talking. This display is surreal.
Squeeky –
I doubt that the Pope can beatify Obama. But what you described is something Stevie Nicks could so.
As I said Spinelli, I have nothing to hide. And I’m sick to death of your underhanded creepy tactics, when it comes to my private life and my children. Your comments of this morning that were deleted were disgusting and reprehensible.
Thank you for defending the Constitution, Professor.