Congress, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Politics, Society

House of Representatives Files Defense Of Historic Challenge To Obamacare In Federal Court

Congressional SealSeal_of_the_President_of_the_United_States.svgThe Obama Administration previously filed its Motion to Dismiss in the challenge by the United States House of Representatives v. Burwell. As many of you know, I am lead counsel in the action. The Obama Administration is seeking to block the court from hearing the merits of our Complaint and below is our filing today in defense of the right of the House of Representatives to be heard in the federal court. The case is before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.


The filing concerns “standing” and the right of a house of Congress to appear in a federal court. In deference to the Court, we will confine our specific responses to our filing today before Judge Collyer.

I am honored to be on this brief with a brilliant legal team from the General Counsel’s office of the United States House of Representatives, including General Counsel Kerry Kircher, Deputy General Counsel William Pittard, Senior Assistant General Counsel Todd Tatelman, Assistant Counsel Eleni Roumel, Assistant Counsel Isaac Rosenberg, and Assistant Counsel Kimberly Hamm.

We remain confident of both the standing and the merits of this historic challenge by the House of Representatives.

Jonathan Turley
Lead Counsel

Here are today’s filings: Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss (Feb. 27, 2015) (ECF No. 22)

Ex. A CRS Mem (Feb. 27, 2015) (ECF No. 22-1)

141 thoughts on “House of Representatives Files Defense Of Historic Challenge To Obamacare In Federal Court”

  1. BTW…I was a military “Fed” for a long time, and in uniform before that…I know what appropriation law is and what is allowed (gotten away with), legal or not, under CR’s. Technically, up to the time I retired, any expenditure over $700,000 had to have a line item appropriation from Congress…and it was commonly ignored (split distributions) , both before and during the era of CR’s. Not certain what the limit is today…a quadrillion or so?

    Like I said, we fix it or the huge bureaucratic beast in DC will own us.

  2. Jettexas said …

    He’s funding Obamacare aka ACA from the Treasury. That’s illegal.

    I repeat myself…NOT under CR’s. CR’s allow fund gerrymandering, for 95% of a prior year’s expenditures, which is why so many politicians like them instead of legitimate budgets. We force Congress to fix it for 2016 or forget it.

    1. Fascinating. Do you think he is learning anything? (More Grease from the pork machine I am sure) Of course he is. Wait until I cut and paste that comment Aridog to my friend I have been trying to get on here. lol

  4. What I said was that Professor Turley would put the Constitution ahead of his personal feelings.

    Everybody’s view of torture is different. If someone I love can be saved by torturing someone, fine by me. But wouldn’t like my loved one to be tortured.

    I watched Professor Turley testify at committee meetings. I also watched his anxiety about what he had to say based on the Constitution. But the Constitution came first.

    Obama has moved money from Treasury to HHS. I think it’s another overreach. I hope he comments on that.

  5. Nick,
    They are a comic strip in and of themselves. One doesn’t need to be a PO to recognize their moral imbalance. They don’t realize they are the grease that keeps our governmental sausage-making machine humming right along.

  6. I didn’t word my response too good. What I meant to say is Obama cannot take money for a bill/law from an account that wasn’t authorized by congress. It’s another executive branch power-grab. Congress already authorized an account for Obamacare to use but they haven’t funded it yet. Mr. Lew will also be in trouble for allowing Obama to do it. Obamacare is also trying to force the states to fund some portions of the bill, which is also un-Constitutional.

    @Nick . . .I read that scenario alot on the Huff-Po. lol But this:

    “But to the extent Pres. Obama is actually exceeding his authority, the rank hypocrisy of the plaintiffs is probably not a valid defense. I suspect, however, that the plaintiffs will lose on the question of standing.”

    . . . is totally incorrect. Obama certainly exceeded his authority. I’d say prove your assertion, here’s my proof.

    “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
    — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

    “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
    — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7

    The Plaintiff’s will prevail.

  7. Isaac and Don de are moral relativists and enablers. Not a good combo. It reminds me of little Johnny saying, “I didn’t want to throw the rock through the window but Bobby made me do it. He was being mean.” Our co-dependent dynamic duo would say, “You’re right, Johnny, Bobby was being mean, you had no other choice but to throw that rock through the window.”

    I was a juvenile probation officer in the 1970’s, saw and heard a lotta that dysfunction.

  8. Doubtful, a president can’t authorize funding for one of his bills from an UNAUTHORIZED congressional approved account. Congress has sole discretion what money account funds a bill. It’s Un-Constitutional otherwise. That’s what this lawsuit is about. He’s funding Obamacare aka ACA from the Treasury. That’s illegal.

  9. “Turley’s client is the People and not the GOP led House of Representatives.”

    Maybe in some fantasy land comic strip. Not in real life. Lawyers who go on crusades not authorized by their real life client get in trouble. And deservedly so. Prof. Turley’s real life client is not the “people” and is not the “GOP led House of Representatives.” His client is the GOP House Republicans. Big difference. He must do their bidding. Or withdraw.

    Issac

    You are correct that what Pres. Obama did was an understandable reaction to the position he was placed in by Congressoinal Republicans. But to the extent Pres. Obama is actually exceeding his authority, the rank hypocrisy of the plaintiffs is probably not a valid defense. I suspect, however, that the plaintiffs will lose on the question of standing.

  10. Wally,
    Have you read the civility rules? There are filters on this blog that will hold comments up for review if certain words or phrases or number of links, etc. are used in a post. Since you are able to get some posts through I suspect your undoing is the result of your own doing…so to speak.

  11. Sandi,
    Until he demonstrates that he considers himself and his liberal agenda as superior to the rule of law, then he is just the sort of principled individual we need sitting on that bench. This unfortunately is viewed as a character flaw by many on this blog and around this country; they can hardly contain their contempt for him.

  12. Olly said;
    “Turley’s client is the People and not the GOP led House of Representatives. I would expect him to have accepted this challenge had Pelosi’s House requested exactly the same thing. The sooner the People discover these folks on the hill are simply fighting over who gets to decide HOW the People get to be screwed then the sooner we can restore some sanity to this institution we call government.”

    ~~~ Spot On!

    1. I hope that he is on the Supreme Court Some Day because he is truly fair. If he believes in man made global warming and it is proven false, he will accept it. That is how fair minded people are. That is how they come to fair decisions.

  13. Sandi, I hope you’re not forgetting that Professor Turley is a believer in man made global warming and is against the use of torture and he would’ve liked to have seen the ones who implemented it prosecuted. Are you sure you’d like to see him on the SC?

  15. SamFox

    No, I was referring to the God who hated and did not redeem people who sinned

  16. Okay, well then, Darren Smith are Wally’s posts hung up? Johnathan Turley is a big time Liberal fights for your rights type against police brutality and all. Look back Through the posts.

    1. I told my husband yesterday that Professor Turley should be on the Supreme Court. He went ballistic! He’s too liberal! I said it didn’t matter, that his demonstrated respect for the Constitution would be the reasoning behind his decisions?.

      Who is right?

  18. Turley’s client is the People and not the GOP led House of Representatives. I would expect him to have accepted this challenge had Pelosi’s House requested exactly the same thing. The sooner the People discover these folks on the hill are simply fighting over who gets to decide HOW the People get to be screwed then the sooner we can restore some sanity to this institution we call government.

  19. There is the law and the constitution, which should be upheld and protected. Then there is the hypocrisy. This stems from a move Obama made to respond to the criticisms being fired at him from the Republicans, a move to accommodate those that would be disadvantaged by having to adhere to the ACA in too short a time. Obama did what was asked by the Republicans but he did it quickly and specifically by executive order. If he had taken the ACA back to Congress to amend it, the Republicans would have tied it up relentlessly and unendingly. So, yes to protecting the Constitution but this has Republican stink all over it. Hopefully the court can see that. What’s more Americans have to see how this rotten sausage is being stuffed.

    Turley is a legal eagle and is doing his job. The rest is BS.

Comments are closed.