800px-Capitol_Building_Full_ViewThe House’s entire legal team would like, first and foremost, to express its gratitude and respect for Judge Rosemary Collyer in issuing this historic and profound decision. The opinion is attached below.

The ruling today means that the United States House of Representatives now will be heard on an issue that drives to the very heart of our constitutional system: the control of the legislative branch over the “power of the purse.” We are eager to present the House’s merits arguments to the Court and remain confident that our position will ultimately prevail in establishing the unconstitutional conduct alleged in this lawsuit.

Today’s victory is not for the legal team or even the House of Representatives but the country as a whole. Regardless of any divisions that we may have in politics, we remain united by a common article of faith in our constitutional system. Securing this decision means that the fundamental questions raised by the Administration’s actions will be resolved by the courts and not simply the court of public opinion. The system as a whole will be benefited by clarifying the respective powers of the branches.

The House filed this lawsuit after the Administration openly violated the Constitution by paying – and by continuing to pay – billions in public funds to insurance companies under an Affordable Care Act program without any appropriation from Congress. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution, states very clearly and very plainly that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

In his FY 2014 budget request to Congress, the President specifically asked Congress to appropriate several billion dollars for payments to insurance companies for that fiscal year. Congress declined to appropriate the requested funds. The Administration then unilaterally opted to take money from the Treasury and to make payments to insurance companies in the absence of any appropriation from Congress. To date, the Administration has paid out more than $4 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that amount will reach $175 billion over the next 10 fiscal years.

Rather than address the merits head on, the Administration argued that even if the President broke the law and committed $175 billion to insurers without authority, Congress may not seek judicial enforcement of the Constitution and the courts have no authority to order appropriate relief. The position would have sharply curtailed both the legislative and judicial branches. The Court has now answered that question with a resounding rejection of this extreme position.

Judge Collyer held:

“Neither the President nor his officers can authorize appropriations; the assent of the House of Representatives is required before any public monies are spent. Congress’s power of the purse is the ultimate check on the otherwise unbounded power of the Executive. . . . The genius of our Framers was to limit the Executive’s power “by a valid reservation of congressional control over funds in the Treasury.” . . . Disregard for that reservation works a grievous harm on the House, which is deprived of its rightful and necessary place under our Constitution. The House has standing to redress that injury in federal court.”

Finally, I would like to thank the extraordinary team that played such a key role in bringing about this case and this victory. Specifically, I would like to thank General Counsel Kerry Kircher; Deputy General Counsel William Pittard; Senior Assistant General Counsel Todd Tatelman; and Assistant Counsels Eleni Roumel, Isaac Rosenberg, and Kimberly Hamm. They are unparalleled in their constitutional knowledge and experience in this area.

Jonathan Turley
Lead Counsel, United States House of Representatives v. Burwell

Burwell Decision (Sept. 9, 2015)


  1. And rein in the reign of Emperor Barack I? No judge has the audacity of hope to do this!

    Seriously – nice job professor and kudos to the judge for going straight to the written word of the Founding Fathers for settlement of the dispute.

  2. Can the House sue the thief Obama to recover illegally spent funds? Even if they can’t get it all, at least get 90% of his future earnings. Also take his retirement benefit.

    Let him ask for collections from the Obama phone recipients.

  3. Impeachment is the mechanism that should have been employed long ago.

    The executive and judicial branches act with impunity.

    Boehner and the Congress/Senate are negligent and derelict.

    “…high Crimes and Misdemeanors” must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

  4. Republicans have always wanted a king, and still do. These were the folks that once sided with the crown, that wanted to anoint George Washington. They want a king on the throne in the White House, just not a black one.

    So let’s see them do their jobs. That would be a refreshing change. Have an original idea. Don’t like Bob Dole’s old health care plan? (what we call Obamacare), then come up with a fix.

    Waiting. Waiting…

  5. This tyrant may want to fundamentally transform this country but he’s going to have to do it without the people’s checkbook.

    Congratulations Professor!

  6. This is one clear judgment upholding the Constitution of this country. How about dozens of other violations by the administration? Are we getting more positive rulings like this one?

  7. As JT knows, that was just round 1. The heavy favorite came out swinging in the first round and the underdog, JT, used his boxing skills in the sweet science to get to round 2. Now we have a heavyweight fight! Congrats.

  8. I disagree with the court. Obama is playing chicken with Congress, and the House is only showing its weakness with this suit. He is defiant to an extent I haven’t seen since FDR. His use of unauthorized funds satisfies “high crimes and misdemeanors”, just as Reagan did with Iran-Contra. The Constitution is seriously damaged by his action. Only impeachment.

  9. Excert of an Article about the case: “Although the immediate effect of the decision was to deny power to the Court, its long-run effect has been to increase the Court’s power by establishing the rule that ‘it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ Since Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court has been the final arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation.”

  10. Maybe now they will and understand what powers the Constitutions have.
    But look at this Laws are made everyday and most of them violate the Constitutions
    Besides the separation of Power, of state and of religion,
    Mostly they charge an offense with a new law and call it justice to the people.
    But look at who it harms it creates injustice by Ex post Facto means.
    And this is a form of tyranny by creating nobility to governmental powers.
    Like Barons of old who use to steal land and create servitude of those living there.
    Along way to go yet, but this is a start.

  11. Regarding the SCOTUS and judicial branch:

    Terms for life were established when the life expectancy was 40 years.

    Terms were established, by that math, not to exceed 20 years and averaged 10 years.

    Terms should be limited, recall facilitated and punishment severe for treason and usurpation.

    The SCOTUS has made a mockery of the Founders, the American thesis and the founding documents.

    The “dictatorship of the interpreters” must be thrown out.

    Split decisions by the nine-member court are impossible, counterintuitive and corrupt. Split decisions require prosecution of the court. The SCOTUS must objectively argue among itself regarding the law, not with political opponents about a political agenda. Commensurate justices and law must lead to unanimous decisions. Justices must be responsible for exposing the corrupt members who eschew objectivity and favor the subjective. Nine cardiologists must agree on the single best efficacious course of testing and treatment, to draw an analogy.

    The People voted, demonstrably in CA, against homosexual ascendance and illegal alien invasion. The judicial branch usurped power, abused the power of government against the people and nullified the power of the People.

    The only people in America who don’t know the definition of “state” and “federal” are the Supreme Court Justices. Alternatively, the SCOTUS acted cavalierly on a subjective, ideological basis, with malice as subversion in its ACA “decision,” AKA EDICT.

    All Hail, Your Majesties and Eminencies, the Justices of the Supreme Court.


    Justice Ginsberg denigrated and disparaged the U.S. Constitution to foreign citizens in a foreign country.

    This undermining and debasement cannot stand.

  12. “Another waste of taxpayer monies and time, Prof. Turley should be ashamed.”

    If the feds gutted your personal bank account, would you believe it was not worth your time or money to get it back?

  13. Who’s going to be hurt if this lawsuit prevails? Poor people:

    “If the House succeeds on the substance of their suit, too, it would spell trouble for Mr. Obama’s namesake law. Nearly 6 million Obamacare customers with incomes between 100 percent and 250 percent of poverty rely on the payments, according to recent analysis by Avalere Health, a D.C.-based consultancy.”

    Way to go Mr. Turley and all of your supporters. Let’s make the poor, poorer. And amplify classism in health care in America. People will die if this lawsuit prevails, as poor people will be less able to afford health care.

  14. If the affordable care act was passed, defended twice in the Supreme Court and had as a part of it the distribution of funds to assist some, then how is this spending of money a singular and isolated move by the President and not a part of a whole that was passed by the House and the Presidency and ruled legal and installed by the Supreme Court?

    This seems to be another opening in the war of semantics and interpretation due to the ambiguity inherent in the American system(s). In spirit the ACA has been passed legally and defended by the SCOTUS, twice.

    The only good thing that should come out of this is the isolation of the private sector that continues to parasitically profit from the health and welfare of Americans, something that only exists in this country. When Hillary gets in if she has the minerals she will complete the transition to a single payer system like any intelligent nation. If she doesn’t put that forward and finish this atrocity of a health care insurance system then I will join the bandwagon, even though there is no one worth voting for on the right.

    It does make for interesting banter though.

  15. Credit where credit is due! Still, it would be nice If these people put as much (not more, just… as much) effort into protecting the fourth amendment – that protects the people – as they do protecting their own turf, but I won’t hold my breath. The superficial modifications made to the “USA Freedom Act” were pathetic (in fact, just the name tells you all you need to know).

    The parallel to this ruling would be if the court had allowed the White House to spend as much money as it wanted when ever it wanted on anything it wanted except between two seconds to midnight and midnight on the 31 of December on leap years.

  16. Olly, Do you think these whiners and hand wringers, w/o even a rudimentary understanding of our CONSTITUTIONAL govt., realize JT is an Obama voter and supports govt. healthcare, climate change, etc.?? JT has INTEGRITY and these partisans wouldn’t know INTEGRITY if it slapped them upside their thick heads. Have they read or seen JT speak about this Uber Presidency the Chicago politician has creates in DC?

  17. If it as Nick S says then the Professor has commited Malpractice and has an inherient ethics rules violstion. You cannot be for one and because the other has a bigger bank account represent them.

    Besides that is next to the dumbest thing that has ever been stated.

  18. I wasn’t around when Washington was being considered for King. I resent the comment above that Republicans want a King, just not a black man. The idea of a King is nonsense and why are Dr. Carson’s numbers so high if we are bigoted against blacks? The disregard Obama has for the Constitution is shameful. I wonder what condition the world will be in when he leaves? Certainly far more dangerous. What does Obama think about all the bodies being washed up on Libya’s shores? Little girls with their heads cut off? The refugees; where can they go? January 20, 2016 seems so far away. Will I see a restored world before I die?

  19. How can 1 stupid ass Republican party Judge be so obtuse.
    Doesn’t it matter to that whore that she’ll be actually and factually will be killing hundreds of thousands of UNITED STATES CITIZENS whom will be to poor to afford any Healthcare. If she Fuchs up what hundreds of other countries have GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS THAT COVER ALL CITEZEN S OF THE COUNTY EXCEPT. FOR THE PHUKIN, UNITED STATES. THANK YOU ROSEMARY COLLYER THE JUDGE-MENT WHO IS IN THE REPUBLICAN party’s POCKET! !

  20. The country may not be headed for one person rule after all. Now that he has been checked in his reach for a power not granted the Executive Branch in the Constitution, the next step is for Obama to be firmly and finally checkmated. This is a breath of fresh air that has been blown into the weakened life of the Republic. Let sovereign people everywhere, as well as though still yearning for greater freedoms, hold their glasses high for representative democracy.

  21. Dogma, what do you think Medicaid is? It’s to pay for the uninsured. There are many suggestions in congress for a different system. From what I see the insurance companies made out very well. Why? Why were the insurance companies a part of this in the first place. We have 300,000,000+ people, more than any country with national health care. Last time I heard the numbers, only 6,000,000 were enrolled in Obamacare. That leaves 294,000,000 not in Obama’s idea of national health care. That’s why health care should be at the State level, along with a few hundred other things. The Federal government has clearly identified responsibilities in the Constitution. It stops there. How about using the Constitution as it was meant. To keep the gigantic mess we have now from happening. The biggest disaster in Obamacare starts next January. The employer provided medical plans go bye bye. Your taxes go up, up, up.

    Notice the use of garbage words were not used. Try it sometime.

  22. NIck,

    I don’t believe they are upset out of ignorance, I believe they are upset because they fully understand this runs against the grain of their progressive agenda. For these people, the constitution is a roadblock that they haven’t quite managed to finish bulldozing. They really believe they have an ally with JT but he draws the line at the constitution and that is driving them nuts.

    Just take note of the commenters that oppose this action. They are the “domestic” referenced in the oath of office.

  23. We need a socialized medical care system. What we have is a capitalist system of doctors and medical corporations raping and pillaging without cost control. The government helps some Americans pay the capitalist millionaire doctors and other medical corporations. I do not know what Trump has in mind but some minds must start thinking about a European or Canadian system.

  24. Olly, For some of these folks I agree. But, for others they are just blind partisans w/o any intellect or intellectual honesty. Liberals last great hero was FDR. He too had an Uber Presidency. He rounded up and incarcerated Japanese-American citizens w/ the approval of SCOTUS. No one did squat. JT is @ least trying.

  25. Govt. healthcare means rationing. Just last week, the NHS in the UK cut off cancer treatment for 5500 patients when they ran out of funding.

  26. The people of the US are to blame for the worst health care insurance system in the world. The solution is as simple as next door. The systems in the Canadian provinces are administered by each province as per the wishes of the people through their democratically elected representatives. In a period of austerity the system is tightened. In a period of wealth the system is loosened. It is a two tier system where the individual has the option to augment their basic insurance and/or use private clinics. The provincial medical plan reimburses the resident for part of the private costs. This system makes the American system look like a cheap sideshow game.

    The federal government controls an umbrella ‘act’ that keeps the provincial systems within reasonable limits. The bottom line is that the province administers the plan, funded through federal income tax, and no one is without coverage. The option for extended coverage and speciality stuff is there at the partial expense of the individual. That is to say if you want something that is not critical done immediately you can pay and the government will contribute approximately 70%. The remainder is tax deductible.

    The fact that this has not been instituted in the US is due to the oligarchical system of government in the US and the mumbo jumbo the right mutters referring to holy dictates written down some time ago that only they can understand. The people have little to no say in the matter. The health care insurance corporations buy the politicians and maintain the status quo.

    This has nothing to do with the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or squat. This is common sense, something that is in short supply concerning certain aspects of Americanism. To continue on this course is nothing more than the stupid following the stupid. Even Trump is for a single payer system. If Obama has taken us to this moment of decision making; in spite of the dog’s breakfast that is the ACA, it will have been worth it. However, half of all Americans, very well represented on this blog, would never admit to that.

    If the Republican party can create chaos and crises so to offer themselves up as the solution then the ACA is nothing more than that strategy. However, it is not for garnering power but to serve the people of the US.

  27. Nick,

    Their political worldview doesn’t place the rule of law first; the rule of want comes first and it is only a coincidence if what they want happens to be fulfilled constitutionally.

  28. Americans have the best healthcare in the world. We won’t wait months or years for elective surgery. People don’t go to Canada for healthcare when they’re dying and need cutting edge healthcare, pronto. THEY COME TO THE US! That includes Canadians BTW.

  29. Nick

    As is typical with those who are mindlessly argumentative, you have not read the entire article regarding the UK’s cut of drugs. Funds were made available for cancer drugs and when those funds maxed out some drugs were taken off the list but new and more effective drugs were added. Overall this is an austerity move that is part of the fine tuning that is constantly done in the single payer, socialist, communist, despicable systems everyone else prefers. The difference is that in the UK these drugs are still available, partially subsidized by the government. The US system is pathetic.

  30. Nick

    As a matter of fact Americans do go to Canada for health care. The only ones that come to the US are those that require services only available in the US. The provincial health care plans pay for that. If it is a matter of convenience the provincial health care plans offset the costs up to 70%. We are talking about health care insurance here not the cutting edge of services. The excessive costs of health care insurance in the US do nothing in the way of contributing to the levels of health care. You should be smart enough to understand that, with all the observing you do.

    Differentiate between health care and health care insurance. Health care is a result of the population and money to be made in hospitals. Health care insurance costs are parasitical and benefit no one but the CEOs and hundreds of thousands of redundant employees.

  31. The US has the most advanced healthcare in the world. That is not debatable. Govt. healthcare means rationing. That too, is not debatable. That is unacceptable to me and most Americans.

  32. With competition comes innovation. When govt. bureaucrats monopolize healthcare it is not only rationed, there is not the innovation competition and free market generates. Let’s cut to the chase. You are a socialist. I am not. This country is not. WTF else is there to argue?

  33. We already have health care ratioining. If you cannot pay you die, my wife almost found out about that the hard way. Fortunately she found a doctor who would falsify records and other things to save her life. She was turned down for chemo where she lived and would have died if she did not have a sister who lived near the UTMB in Galveston and got into an experimental program.

  34. http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/stephen-hawking-defends-care-in-the-uk/?_r=0

    The physicist Stephen Hawking is defending Britain’s National Health Service after an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily said Mr. Hawking “wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K.,” where the health service would have deemed his life “essentially worthless.”

    The problem with the editorial, of course, is that Dr. Hawking, the author of “A Brief History of Time,” is very much a Briton — born in Oxford and currently a professor at the University of Cambridge.

    Dr. Hawking — who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the White House on Wednesday — responded to the editorial this week, telling The Guardian newspaper, “I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the N.H.S. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.”

  35. Facts and reality never trump ideology. Those folks who love our health care system of letting people die if they cannot pay refuse to use rational thought.

  36. This is so superb news and makes me appreciate Jonathon Turley’s so much.

    So NOW would some of you naive conspiracy nay- sayers like to reconsider your positions? Do you think there may be just a wee possibility, maybe even probability, that Obama COULD be a traitorous swine? Some of you have a lot of catching up to do.

  37. Wow, democrats do want a king with limitless powers. Wish you would live in another country and see how good we got it here, thanks to the founders.

    I’ve only been to 29 countries but what I’ve seen in most, at least the ones who do not have democracies, the poor are living in shack poor homes because their dictators choose to take their money and spend it on whatever they want and it’s not on his subjects. There are people who don’t even have the use of bathrooms. Whenever I got on U.S. soil, I literally got down on my knees and kissed the ground.

    You take away the purse strings and give them to the executive branch, you’ll have tyranny. Obama would definitely jump all over that. Look at the money they spend on vacations alone.

  38. Nick

    When you are capable to differentiate between health care and health care insurance, then you will have something to say. Up until now it has been, American is the best and can do nothing wrong, somewhat of a tail.

  39. I guess you forgot Nixon, Reagan, and others who did FAR worse than Obama. Nixon said if the President says it is legal it is. Reagan broke the law Congress passed about using funds for the Contras and led to the Iran/Contra scandal. They sold US weapons to Iran which violated the LAW Congress passed against selling such things to them. Where was Prof Turley when that happened? At least Obama used funds to support a law passed by Congress, and make sure those who had no health insurance got it. The question is can Congress pass a law and then refuse to fund it, and thereby violate that law which has not been repealed? So are we to move to a Congressional dictatorship more like the parliamentary systems the Brits have? It is an interesting question that I think the courts are ill equiped to handle. The normal route would be impeachment if Congress felt the President overstepped his bounds. Hell they impeached Clinton for perjury in a civil trial which had nothing to do with such a momentus question as this. I think that they need to use the tools they already have.

  40. Olly, When I read “yeah but what about Reagan, Nixon yada yada blah blah” I know the train has left the track. LOL!

    You’re correct. This country was founded on the rule of law, not men. The founders did not to be ruled by a king, so they made the greatest Constitution and democracy, based on individual rights and the rule of law. I often wondered if they would have made individual rights even stronger if they foresaw the pernicious socialistic mindset of today.

  41. Americans do not have, and have not had for decades, the best healthcare in the world. We rank way down on the list of numerous health indicators. And before you jump to the “well why do so many people come here for treatment?” rationale, let me point out that far more people LEAVE the U.S for medical treatment than come here. Look up “medical tourism” and come back.

    Also, the British cut funding to their NHS cancer fund so it is no surprise they ran out of money. It’s what Republicans in Congress do every day–cut funding for programs (like, say, embassy defense), and then whine about how government can’t do anything when something goes wrong.

    Like any agency that has its funding cut, the NHS started with the most expensive treatments and worked their way down the list. Their most expensive cancer drug runs about $140,000 a year. Looks like pharma has them over the same barrel.

    And have you ever noticed that when you threaten to negotiate drug prices, big Pharma always talks about cutting research? They never talk about cutting back on advertising…

  42. When you tell govt. they have to make cuts they always say, “we will have to cut police and fire protection.” Never, “we will have to cut those thousands of mindless bureaucrats sitting in cubicles watching porn all day.”

  43. The concept of “standing to sue” is predicated upon the two feet upon which the plaintiff stands. Congress has 500 plus sets of feet. How can a simple majority of my co congressmen speak for me if I am in the minority? Perhaps some of those Congressmen who agree with the expenditures should file a motion to intervene in this lawsuit.

    Perhaps each political party should be a separate party in the litigation. The Republicons in Congress do not speak for the Democrats.

    All of the comments above are about tyranny and whatnot and do not really address the weakness of the Standing issue here. BarkinDog barked in about this issue a month or so ago. He is off to Bermuda in a sailboat and has not been heard from since the day they left.

  44. Jonathan: How disingenuous. You won a procedural issue on standing and then for self promotion publish an article that from the comments clearly shows your readers are missing the point that this Pyrrhic victory has some meaning upon the substantive issues in the case. You should know that it does not. This case is all about merely grandstanding by a bunch of loose cannon Republicans in the Congress who could not care less the damage they inflict upon this country while they fiddle with the Courts and the middle class, working people, who should be paid a decent wage, burn. How cynical of you to print this farce the week of Labor Day. You should know and I know this decision by presumably a Republican President selection to the bench will go no further than yesterday’s headlines. I practiced law for 30 years so I fully understand that your personal views need not coincide with your client’s, but if your new claim to fame is being a mouthpiece for the Tea Partiers, I have no interest in partaking in your self promoting publications any further.

  45. It’s sounds so pathetic anymore to hear Republic bashing. As if the Democrats have done such a great job. And vice versa, it’s just as pathetic. You seriously need to wake up. Obama is a traitorous pig and he could just as easily have been a Republican. If he had been, then we would have to listen to you huffing and puffing on the other side of the fence. Jonathon Turley is fighting for the Constitution and the rule of law, which should apply equally to everyone. You seem to be one of those people who would say “The end justifies the means.” but I tell you, “The means determines the end”. When the means are dishonorable, the end is a sham.

  46. Frau Hildegard: Wake up! This is lawsuit is an inane argument by politically posturing Republican extremists that a law enacted by Congress, signed by the President and upheld by the US Supreme Court cannot be faithfully carried out as intended Congress enacted it by powers granted to the Executive Branch. Does every Social Security check require an act of Congress? It is a Congress that would attempt to undercut federal law as written by subterfuge and stealth by acting contrary to the law and their oath of office that are the perpetrators of perfidy

    and who are the ones that obviously believe the end (thwarting a constitutionally duly enacted law) can justify continuous efforts to achieve that end by any means imaginable including what I think will prove to be a frivolous lawsuit costing taxpayers millions of dollars. This is not some lawsuit to protect constitutional rights of American citizens. Not at all. It is an attempt to deny millions of Americans health care by a faithless feckless Congress in breach of trust of its duty of fidelity to the law.

  47. I agree with victorperry in both comments. The issue of “Standing To Sue” needs to be discussed on the blog. That is the issue before the courts. The court has not gotten to the merits of the case very well as yet. My critique of the district court opinion is that it is sort of hither and yon and does not directly and succinctly discuss any issue it delves into, particularly standing. Congress has how many people over all in the House and Senate? Five thirty three? I dont know. In terms of feet you double that. If someone has lost a foot in Vietnam or someplace then give them credit for two feet. Congress is comprised of people who stand alone on the floor of Congress and argue with each other. A majority of those twits cannot speak for all. Twitter that! A lawsuit filed in court by a party like a corporation must have the consent and approval of the governing board and hierarchy of the corporation. A swim team could not sue on behalf of all the swimmers– even if some of them could only swim the breaststroke. A neighborhood association could not sue on my behalf just because it claims to represent my interests in my neighborhood. Not on an issue that is squarely about me or my tenants. And so on.
    The plaintiffs in the JT case do not have standing to sue. There are not enough feet in the lawsuit and there are others in Congress with opposing views. I am a citizen, ok a dog citizen, and Congress does not represent me on this one. I object. I am going to intervene.

  48. Nick, if you had ever been party to corporate layoffs you would know it’s the same story. Crappy mid-level managers, assistant VPs and worthless HR “professionals” picking people to lay off when it should be them stepping down. Corporate mergers and acquisitions continue apace when ALL the data shows they almost never add value or any efficiencies whatsoever. No difference between the corporate and public sectors except the salaries of the dipshirts making the decisions.

  49. philly, I am unique. I have worked for the govt., for a large corporation, for a large law firm, and ran my own business for 30 years. Additionally, I worked as a kid in our family restaurant/catering business.Whether you believe it or not, I always seek agreement w/ people. It is my positive nature which was nurtured coaching baseball for decades. In large part, I agree w/ you regarding similarities to large corporations and large govt. I often comment here about my derision for large corporations that lobby govt. for sweet deals. Generally, the larger an organization, the less efficient. But, here’s the fundamental difference. The govt. has a money tree called working people who are taxpayers. The waste I saw working for govt. far exceeded any waste I saw in the large multinational corporation for whom I worked. Ultimately a corporation is answerable to stockholders. If they don’t profit, they perish. Our bloated, out of control govt. is answerable to no one.

  50. To Isaac: It’s great that you can bundle all issues so neatly. After all, if SCOTUS upheld ObamaCare twice, then anything he does is legal. To you, the fact that he swipes taxpayer funds that he NEVER had authority for is ‘mumbo jumbo”. Somehow, the ends always justify the means, so the Constitution is irrelevant. Woodrow Wilson would agree with you. But, to me, no elected leader has power to disobey the will of the people because he’s doing the “sensible” “rational” thing. Although I think the suit will overturned on appeal, I applaud all efforts to stop this rogue POTUS from further defacement of the law. As for the American people finally “seeing the light” and enacting a single-payer system, don’t hold your breath. Unlike those other “rational” countries, we’ve seen how the Progressives make their own law at their convenience. Obama’s clone would probably administer it the way he or she wants, no matter what the law says.

  51. And “If you like your plan you can keep your plan.” Using willful fraud to gain public support makes Obamacare null and void. In fact Obama’s presidency is null and void, making every law he signed while in office null and void. Ask yourself why all his official records have been sealed. Why did he spend $5,000,000 to keep people from seeing his birth certificate only to offer up a fabricated image on Whitehouse.gov? Anyone who isn’t at this point a “BIRTHER” and has actually looked at the evidence is willfully ignorant and should be pitied.

    “”In politics, a lie unanswered becomes truth within 24 hours.”
    ~Willie Brown, California political leader

  52. While most contributors in this blog are slogging around in the weeds of their own version of just government, Professor Turley has proven he takes an absolutist view on how this constitutional republic should function. We will all certainly never agree on WHAT we want our government to do for us, but if we cannot agree on HOW it should be done, then we will eventually collapse under our own bureaucratic weight.

  53. AND “IF YOU LIKE YOUR PLAN YOU CAN KEEP YOUR PLAN”. It’s a scam, a con game that benefits MOSTLY insurance companies. You sound like a Socialist who would like nothing more than to see us all equally poor and you’re getting your wish if you haven’t noticed.

    Do you think Obama had a real choice after accepting many millions in insurance lobby money? This is Washington business as usual but because it’s cloaked in “healthcare” (more accurately “sickcare”) progressives get all glassy eyed and don’t realize that they’ve been duped as always. Do you think the insurance lobby is NOT going to get what they paid for, even if Obama has to lie through his teeth to deliver?

    And don’t kid yourself about who I am. I fall in the poverty level income category but because I use my limited resources wisely I am a VERY healthy (formerly very ill) person. Yes, we need something to insure people get truly needed care but Obamacare is NOT it.


  54. This post and thread has been educational for me. In all my time as a “Fed”, in and out of uniform I presumed most people knew the difference between “legislation” which creates a framework for some activity and “appropriation” which funds said activity, or not. There are countless framework activities on the books for which funding is denied or barely provided….and the executive branch does not have the authority to over ride that choice by Congress. With a few exceptions I now understand that most people do not understand the difference. Roughly half my time as a “Fed” was spent disputing misappropriation by various agency offices who would casually take funds appropriated for X and give it to Y activity. I now understand why. Made some friends and made some enemies, depending on who wanted the money without an appropriation.

  55. Michael Scott

    My comment laid the basis for a potential position to argue against that which is being supported by this judge. It is not the answer. The question remains, if the ACA was passed legally and ratified twice more legally does the funding come with it? It is more than obvious to anyone that the Republicans will do anything to get their way even after they have lost repeatedly. They will shut down the government. They will contest funding for a legally passed ACA. There is enough ambiguity as well as ambiguous types in the wings to come up with supposedly illegal actions ad infinitum.

    This is the question. Does the ACA which is valid come with the funding or is the funding separate. This would seem to be a point to be interpreted. Back to the SCOTUS who will be vile again if they vote for funding and heroes to the tails if they do not.

  56. Impeachment should happen but so should grand larceny charges. Charge him, try him, convict him, and let him spend the rest of his life in some prison’s general population. I’d look forward to seeing how long it would take before he was shanked.

  57. I agree with your basic opinion but disagree that he should be impeached. Impeachment legitimizes his presidency and validates all the laws and executive orders he’s signed. His presidency is not legitimate. When a president can’t even pass an E-verify on his social security number, “Houston, we have a problem.” This particular usurpation of the constitution is a the tip of the iceberg. Nullifying his presidency will make all the laws he’s signed null and void.

  58. @ Hildegard – Please tell me what legal process we have to nullify / annul Obama’s presidency or, for that matter, anyone’s presidency. Insofar as I know there’s no facility for doing that.

  59. Issac said …

    The question remains, if the ACA was passed legally and ratified twice more legally does the funding come with it? … Does the ACA which is valid come with the funding or is the funding separate.

    NO, it does NOT/b> come with funding, which is separate and intended to be so. See my 10:51 AM today comment. I am amazed that this is so misunderstood. I really am..I thought it obvious for so long. No POTUS nor SCOTUS has the constitutional authority to say otherwise, but that may be inconsequential today in our brave new world.

  60. The most momentous and important decision since Marbury v. Madison. It hit two huge issues; Can the Congress have standing? Yes. We elected them to be our voice and vote in passing law AND in seeing it is properly followed by the Executive branch. Can the executive branch expend money from funds appropriated for one purpose be expended by the executive for another? No should be the answer.

    Judge Collyer, you are my hero!

  61. “In a time of increasing joblessness attributable to Progressive policies, one suspects businessmen would be the biggest scapegoat, harangued by politicians as evil and greedy for throwing hardworking Americans out of the workforce just to improve their profit margins. This would likely lead to a push for Progressive policies with even more regressive outcomes, in a vicious cycle of can-you-top-this interventions.”


  62. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-gop-lawsuit-20150909-story.html

    “Despite the setback, health law experts do not see this case as posing a major challenge to the future of Obama’s healthcare law. If spending for the reimbursements were cut off, insurers might have to raise premiums somewhat. Other experts say the insurance companies could turn to a federal claims court to seek reimbursements.”

    Sounds like the opening of Pandora’s box.

  63. Obama, broke the law, by paying for Obama Care with printed money, which he order printed. I think he did the same thing with his energy programs. This was necessary to keep Obamacare funded because of his lack of negotiating skills. That’s exactly what the SCOUS should rule. The program Obamacare has to be funded because it is the law of the land. Now both parties lock yourselves in a room until you can find funding via legal means and Mr. President, you have to be willing to give up something.

  64. OMG we have a real live birther on the board! I thought they had all gone to farms upstate to run and play with their teabags. How special.

  65. Nick, glad to hear you are seeking common ground. I never worked for the government. Ran several small businesses. Worked for a few large corporations and a bunch of hospitals–wherever they fall in the spectrum.

    Corporations used to be a lot more responsive and responsible to actual shareholders. Now they have to play to flash traders, hedge funders, arbitrageurs, and giant fund managers. Every once in a while you see an uprising among “average” shareholders. But if you look for the link between CEO performance and pay, it’s often missing. Too many CEO’s sit on each others boards and participate in nothing less than a mutual circle jerk. Would love to see more response from the shareholders and other stakeholders. As Jim Collins has pointed out in his several books, a well-run company can be really amazing!

  66. If the Canadian system is wonderful, why do I meet so many Canadians who moved to Southern California for our health care system? And why aren’t more Americans moving to Canada? Have any of you Canada lovers ever been put on a list to wait for a medical treatment? I haven’t. I’ve had several major surgeries in the last five years and never had to wait for any of them.

    One of the problems with the disadvantaged in this country is their lack of education. A child has a minor earache. Do parents get an over-the-counter treatment, even an aspirin? No. The child’s earache gets more severe. Finally he’s taken to an urgent care facility. By this time the ache has become an infection and he is transferred to a hospital for treatment. This is a true story from my daughter, an RN at the urgent care clinic. On one visit she gave the mother a bottle of medicine. Told her to give to the child the next time he had an ear ache. Pretty soon the child is back with a worse problem. My daughter asked if she had given him the medicine. “My husband drank it because it had alcohol in it.” That’s why I think school nurses should return to our systems. A child can see a nurse every day for the medicine.

    How many of you went to a doctor’s office for treatment of a minor problem? I spent time with a towel over my head over simmering water with menthol and lemon for everything. We were treated at home with grandmother’s mother’s treatment for everything. A doctor visit was rare. But we had a school nurse and if we didn’t feel well, we were sent to her. If she couldn’t reach a parent to take us home we were kept on a cot in her office to keep from spreading germs. Simple solutions, but they worked.

    There are children who have parents with no interest in them. They really should be taken and raised in boarding schools. It sounds harsh, but better than watching children deteriorate and end up a statistic of poor diet and care. These are kids with mothers who are kids themselves. During the Baltimore riots and looting I saw children under ten right with their parents, marching, chanting, and watching Dad loot. What kind of life are they headed toward? Probably some time in jail. After jail they come out to the same environment, don’t get a HS diploma, or a job. Without a place you need to be everyday earning a living, they roam the streets at night and eventually the cycle begins again with another jail sentence.

    We’ve watched this for at least 60 years. Instead of using our tax dollars to be certain all of our children get an education, learn a trade, able to have lives without crime and jail time. Meanwhile, the President wastes money on Obamacare without knowing the system won’t work. Without telling Americans your insurance costs are doubling and tripling because everybody must have the same policy covering everything.

    Finally a Judge recognizes the President is breaking the law, only been doing it for six-plus years. SCOTUS does nothing about it. All my life “we are a country of laws.” Just not for this President. What does the man do all day? He doesn’t meet with any congressional representatives of both parties. He doesn’t bother getting daily briefings every President has gotten. No, just send him a note, does he read it? Who knows.

    Your signature promise to the American people is national health care. And doesn’t ask during two years of development where are we, can I get a demo? No security briefings, no updates on national healthcare. But does he ever go fundraising. And that isn’t even in his job description! Two years, millions of dollars! It should have been perfect, could have been perfect. Except the people responsible aren’t writing it. The insurance companies are. And now they can’t account for all the money spent.

    And finally a Judge says something is amiss. The House of Representatives is required by the Constitution (anybody reading it?) to authorize monies to be spent on what. But this President is transferring money authorized for one thing and spending it elsewhere on a system that crashes day one! And liberals are livid. Well good, we’ve been livid for years and it isn’t fun.

    I’ve gone over the Constitution and the Federalist Papers again and again asking myself why is this being allowed? And I’m not even a lawyer, let alone a JT. Who knows in his brain Impeachment should have been pursued. If there has ever been a President who blatantly lied over and over ” if you like …blah, blah, blah” tell me who (I know, FDR, but we didn’t have video then).

    How do you tell your kids not to lie when the grand poobah is taking lying to new heights? What do you say to sick people your insurance costs are going to double and triple? So, they have to cut back on the meds they need, etc. and what do you tell their families when the patient dies and the doctor tells them he cut back on his meds, but didn’t tell the doctor? You tell them the truth. The President wanted a legacy and apparently some people have decided to die rather than burden their families asking for more $$ aid. But this is minor compared to watching heads chopped off, historical treasures being destroyed, kicking old people out of the only place they ever lived.

    And watched a sanitary worker carrying a three-year-old child from the sea’s edge. His body washed up as thousands flee their homes. You can see the agony in the way the worker carries this small bundle away. Does anyone feel the hope he promised? We’ve certainly seen change. A plan to keep some of our military in Iraq to guard a delicate peace is changed and our military comes home knowing what could happen. We didn’t leave Germany, we didn’t leave Italy, we didn’t leave Japan, we didn’t leave South Korea. Those countries have been safe; we didn’t leave. But we left thousands with no one to keep them safe. The shame you might feel from that last sentence belongs to one man, no one else. The only American President to turn his back on human beings being butchered.

    And we shouldn’t have to wait until January 20, 2017, to be free of him. We should Impeach him now, unless we have no pride left, and I wonder if we do.

  67. Silly T,

    It’s not “birther,” it’s “U.S. Constitution.” You may have heard of it.


    U.S. Constitution
    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5

    “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    For your edification, the Legal Text and Reference the writers of the Constitution adopted was the “Law of Nations,” 1760, which used the phrase, “natural born citizen,” in French (the language of England until the 11th century and of English jurisprudence until the 19th), required two citizen-parents (plural) and that the father must be a citizen.

    The Washington/Jay letter, 1767, raised the constitutional requirement from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” to preclude “foreign allegiances” of the commander in chief (AKA the President).

    The current occupant is distinctly ineligible (aside from being incompetent).

  68. Sandi, and where will all those military troops needed for endless wars and occupations come from? We should’ve impeached Bush, the Mideast wouldn’t be the mess it is now if it were not for his invasion of Iraq. His administration is complicit in that little Syrian boy’s death.

  69. You forget who’s in charge of the House. Even with a court’s ruling, those wimps won’t push anything against Obama. Somebody might call them a racist.

  70. Paul Hutchison
    “Obama, broke the law, by paying for Obama Care with printed money, which he order printed.”

    The Founders fully expected the executive branch to be aggressive and exceed its constitutional parameters.

    The Supreme Court was supposed to be a great big NO.

    The SCOTUS was simply to assure that actions comport with law – that the executive branch obeyed the legislative branch.

    The Supreme Court “broke the law” – broke the back of the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court went rogue and ideological; drunk with power.

    Nine justices, reading the same words of the English language, incriminate themselves by not ruling UNANIMOUSLY for, and upholding, the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Split decisions demonstrate the introduction of political ideology and the rejection of the clear words of the English language. “Interpretation” of the English language is not necessary. “Interpretation” of the American Founders will never lead to “legislation from the bench.” You know the judicial branch is wrong when it overrules the legislative branch which represents the People. Ultimately, the People have the power, not the judicial branch. “interpretation” of the American Founders will never lead to the “dictatorship of the interpreters” over freedom of the individual and free enterprise.

    The SINGULAR American failure for 226 years has been the SCOTUS which has lost all objectivity and rationality and succumbed to the corruption of the introduction of ideology into jurisprudence.

    The egregious secondary failure is that of the Congress in its dereliction and negligence by not impeaching an official of the U.S. for nullification and subversion of the Constitution.

    America is lawless because the tools for corrective action have not been used.

    It’s time to “rein in” the juridical branch with term limits and punitive action for obvious nullification, usurpation and corruption.

    Central planning, redistribution of wealth, bias as affirmative action, homosexuality, murder of babies and profiteering from the sale of body parts are not in the Constitution.

    “State” does not mean “federal.”

    “Federal” does not mean “state.”

    The “dictatorship of the interpreters” is not imposed by the Constitution.

  71. “…We should’ve impeached Bush,…”


    Trump on Iran deal: ‘We are led by very stupid people.”

    Stupid people. Imagine that.


    Hillary Clinton says her Iraq war vote was a ‘mistake’
    By Adam B. Lerner 05/19/15, 04:32 PM

    After days of Republican presidential candidates wrestling with questions on the Iraq war, Hillary Clinton weighed in Tuesday, telling reporters that her vote in favor of the war in 2002 was a “mistake.”

    “I made it very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple. And I have written about it in my book, I have talked about it in the past,” Clinton told reporters at an event in Cedar Falls, Iowa, adding that “what we now see is a very different and very dangerous situation.”


    WIKI –

    The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.[2]

    Republican 215 6 2
    Democratic 82 126 1
    Independent 0 1 0
    TOTALS 297 133 3

    United States Senate[edit]
    Republican 48 1
    Democratic 29 21
    Independent 0 1
    TOTALS 77 23
    58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:

    Lincoln (D-AR)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Dodd (D-CT)
    Lieberman (D-CT)
    Biden (D-DE)
    Carper (D-DE)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Cleland (D-GA)
    Miller (D-GA)
    Bayh (D-IN)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Breaux (D-LA)
    Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
    Kerry (D-MA)
    Carnahan (D-MO)
    Baucus (D-MT)
    Nelson (D-NE)
    Reid (D-NV)
    Torricelli (D-NJ)
    Clinton (D-NY)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Edwards (D-NC)
    Dorgan (D-ND)
    Hollings (D-SC)
    Daschle (D-SD)
    Johnson (D-SD)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Kohl (D-WI)


    America has a “whole lotta impeachin’ to do.”

  72. Ari, The “lack of understanding” you generously call ignorance of BASIC govt. knowledge by people here, and elsewhere, is a constant source of amazement and frustration. I always have to try and determine if someone is just ignorant or playing stupid. Unfortunately, it is usually the former.

  73. I have read the memorandum opinion and congratulate Prof. Turley for some masterful lawyering. Nevertheless, I believe that the decision is legally incorrect and that the court’s conclusions on standing will not survive an appeal.

    Secondly, I disagree with the court’s ruling on justiciability. I believe that this is a classic political dispute amenable to resolution through the political process.

    Finally, even were standing and justiciability not at issue, I would dismiss the case under the doctrine of in pari delicto. It is important to remember that however one may feel about cost-sharing payments to insurance companies, they are entitled to them under the explicit provisions of the ACA. That means that Congress has an obligation to fund them; this is not a case of declining to approve discretionary appropriations. This is the sort of responsibility which would traditionally provide grounds for an action in mandamus by the parties entitled to the payments. (That remedy has been eliminated under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but similar relief is available.) Since the House has failed in its duty to provide the required funding, and the President has exceeded his authority by making the payments through other means, both sides have acted wrongfully and neither side is entitled to seek the assistance of the courts. Under traditional principles of equity, the court should leave the parties where it found them.

  74. Thanks Mike. Finally we have a rational legal opinion that answers the questions raised by this suit. I had to agree as you did that Obama did exceed his authority, and I was wondering how Congress could fail to do its duty under law and skate. The best thing is that since both sides have sinned, leave them alone to work it out politically. There is ample means for that to be done, it is called impeachment.

  75. Absolutely preposterous.

    Obama is not eligible to be the President.

    That illegal and unconditional “precedents” and “case law” were put in place, is not reason to perpetuate them. It is reason to correct them.

    The ACA is fatally flawed incoherent semantic meandering.

    “We have to pass it to know what’s in it.” – Nancy Pelosi.

    The ACA is clearly unconstitutional.

    The strategy here is to ignore the spirit of the law and the “interpret” the letter.

    This convoluted digression is moot in terms of the founding documents and the American thesis.

    Interestingly, all Americans can read and comprehend the founding documents.

    Arguments are another matter entirely.

  76. Paul Hutchison said …

    The program Obamacare has to be funded because it is the law of the land. Now both parties lock yourselves in a room until you can find funding via legal means and Mr. President, you have to be willing to give up something.

    Wrong on the first part, there is no compulsion for Congress to fund anything…even if they should. I fought that battle for years as a DOD “Fed.”

    You are correct on the second part…that the parties to all this need to lock down until they have a solution, and yes, that will require giving up something. That or back to square one…e.g., Congress likes to pass *empowering* laws and likes far less writing appropriations to fund them. The system usually works, but when the empowering portion is done for publicity, then the funding is skipped, it doesn’t work so well. Since we are already some $18.5+ Trillion in debt, eventually something must give or break down. You point on that is well made. So, yeah…something should be given up to add more spending…but I rather doubt we’ll manage that for a while…we’re still delirious with funny money. Considering that most of that debt over reach is actually “owned” by US citizens (China holds but 10% or so), this doesn’t bode well for the future and potential bankruptcy. Its shear comedy that we don’t call ourselves bankrupt now, but the SSA funds held captive to the general fund make that a hard pill to swallow. Oddly, the revenue supporting tax for SSA was reduced while we dug a deeper hole. Go figure.

  77. Another aspect of federal government finance I have concluded is understood by few is the simple fact that several agencies only have “project appropriation funding” and little if any “expense appropriation funding.” This requires that each agency so funded take from the project funds to pay for over head and several are quite good at doing so and stockpiling it as well. In short, if no project funds are appropriated for a given year or agency, under that system, that agency shuts down. Thus the politicians always fund a bit just to stay in office…who wants to be the folks who shuts down an agency? An example would the US Army Corps of Engineers civilian portion…most have no expense appropriation other than for Washington DC headquarters. Lately the Corps has been prostituting itself with the EPA, who has more administrative funding. Win-win.

  78. Congratulations Professor and team on this initial victory.
    An important case which I hope will be upheld in later stages.

    After all, as the founders knew full well, without the requirement of specific appropriation, the entire Treasury becomes merely a huge Executive Branch slush fund.

    Who needs a line item veto then?

  79. Airdog

    I admit to a limited knowledge of how the different parts of the government work. However, I have followed this government for some years now and throughout and recently on two occasions concerning the ACA arguments as well founded in structure have been taken to the SCOTUS and regardless of legal structure, have been interpreted otherwise. There seems to be enough built in ambiguity to allow for right to proceed even when it may not be done to the letter of the law. That is my point and your response would be appreciated.

  80. Annie, there was a plan in place for troops to stay in Iraq, and support from military in place in Kuwait. Obama pulled them out, which has led to thousands of deaths. The best Air Force in the world sent out on piddly missions instead of bombing ISIS off the map. That wouldn’t happen if Bush was there. The pictures taken after WWII of the destruction were hard to believe, but the wipe out of so many places in Syria the people have to leave. I heard the UN had two camps for refugees, each having over a million in population. Young girls are being raped in those camps because there isn’t enough security. Those girls are the ages of Obama’s daughters. Is Iraq producing any oil? Where is the money going? Iraq is sent arms to be given to the Kurds, but that is ignored. Other countries are sneaking arms to the Kurds. Every President takes office with things going on around the world. After the oath they are your responsibility. So quit going back to Bush. He’s been gone close to seven years and things continue to get worse. But Obama will spend his last year fundraising for his library. It doesn’t have to be very big, there can’t be many positive things to go in it.

  81. Sandi, the Status of Forces Agreement was not agreed upon by the Iraqis. Our forces would’ve been in that country without any legal protections from prosecution by the Iraqi government.

    “But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.”[Time, 10/21/11]

    “But talks ran aground over Iraqi opposition to giving American troops legal immunity that would shield them from Iraqi prosecution. Legal protection for U.S. troops has always angered everyday Iraqis who saw it as simply a way for the Americans to run roughshod over the country. Many Iraqi lawmakers were hesitant to grant immunity for fear of a backlash from constituents.

    “When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible,” al-Maliki told a news conference Saturday. “The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started.”” [The Huffington Post, 10/22/2011]

    Bush’s administration is guilty as hell for the mess in the Mideast and no one should forget it.

  82. “Over the last year, in late-night meetings at the fortified compound of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in videoconferences between Baghdad and Washington, American and Iraqi negotiators had struggled to reach an agreement. All the while, both Mr. Obama and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, gave the world a wink and nod, always saying that Iraq was ready to stand on its own but never fully closing the door on the possibility of American troops’ staying on.

    Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended, and Mr. Obama was willing to support a continued military presence. In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.”

    This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty.” [The New York Times, 10/21/11]

    Let’s get our facts straight Sandi.

  83. Also Sandi, not only is this mess in the Mideast directly attributable to Bush’s unessesary war in Iraq, he should’ve been impeached for lying us into a war and then he should’ve been prosecuted for war crimes for the torture program.

  84. “…We should’ve impeached Bush,…”


    Trump on Iran deal: ‘We are led by very stupid people.”

    Stupid people. Imagine that.


    Hillary Clinton says her Iraq war vote was a ‘mistake’
    By Adam B. Lerner 05/19/15, 04:32 PM

    After days of Republican presidential candidates wrestling with questions on the Iraq war, Hillary Clinton weighed in Tuesday, telling reporters that her vote in favor of the war in 2002 was a “mistake.”

    “I made it very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple. And I have written about it in my book, I have talked about it in the past,” Clinton told reporters at an event in Cedar Falls, Iowa, adding that “what we now see is a very different and very dangerous situation.”


    WIKI –

    The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.[2]

    Republican 215 6 2
    Democratic 82 126 1
    Independent 0 1 0
    TOTALS 297 133 3

    United States Senate[edit]
    Republican 48 1
    Democratic 29 21
    Independent 0 1
    TOTALS 77 23
    58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:

    Lincoln (D-AR)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Dodd (D-CT)
    Lieberman (D-CT)
    Biden (D-DE)
    Carper (D-DE)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Cleland (D-GA)
    Miller (D-GA)
    Bayh (D-IN)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Breaux (D-LA)
    Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
    Kerry (D-MA)
    Carnahan (D-MO)
    Baucus (D-MT)
    Nelson (D-NE)
    Reid (D-NV)
    Torricelli (D-NJ)
    Clinton (D-NY)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Edwards (D-NC)
    Dorgan (D-ND)
    Hollings (D-SC)
    Daschle (D-SD)
    Johnson (D-SD)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Kohl (D-WI)


    America has a “whole lotta impeachin’ to do.”

  85. Valerie Jackson
    1, September 10, 2015 at 10:22 pm

    “Rock on, Judge Collyer. Somebody actually read the Constitution.”

    Hear, hear!


  86. Mr. Appleton had the best response that has been written so far. His response is a high bar for anyone commenting on here.

    It is brilliant is scope, depth, quality and legal analysis.

  87. Which is why the trolls and ignorant refuse to comment on it since it shoots down all their pet theories about how the government functions. His contribution is the reason I liked this forum because I can get good legal advice on many topics and I LEARN something.

  88. Thanks for asking. Dr. Edwin Viera, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.can explain it better. http://www.vlrc.org/authors/105.html

    “Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. He is also one of our country’s most eminent constitutional attorneys, having brought four cases that were accepted by the supreme Court and having won three of them.”

    Why Obama cannot be impeached

  89. How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary By Dr. Edwin Vieira

    “It is time to put the Judiciary back in its proper place. Dr. Edwin Vieira, a Trustee of The Conservative Caucus Foundation (TCCF) and a brilliant legal scholar, has comprehensively addressed these and other issues in this study commissioned by the TCCF, ‘Constitutional and Statutory Remedies for Judicial Usurpation and Tyranny.’

  90. Issac said (then asked a question)…

    There seems to be enough built in ambiguity to allow for right to proceed even when it may not be done to the letter of the law…

    And therein lies one of the biggest problems…ambiguity in the law. That said, NO new law setting the structure of an activity, be it the ACA or any other, has funding attached. None. Funding is provided by appropriations authorized by said structural law….they are separate matters. I know of no case where the “incorporated” funding issue has been taken before the SCOTUS successfully. A flaw lately has been our reliance on Continuing Resolutions rather than annual budgets (a sign of laziness IMO)…which allows for considerable manipulation of funding…up to 95% of a prior period’s funding in fact. We seem hooked on this process like an addict on a drug…even though it emasculates both Congress and the Courts, leaving us with a virtual autocracy.

    Said very simply, legally, authorizing legislation is not funding appropriation. Period. In my time as a “Fed” I never once lost in an argument over this matter of appropriation requirements…and I had several cases on point. Since the leadership often wanted my signature on documents permitting funding transfer I objected when there was no appropriation, past or present authorizing it, and I always won those debates…sometimes with rather clandestine Congressional assistance. You shove an instance of bureaucrats ignoring Congress in a Congress person’s face, they can get testy…and intervene directly if irritated enough. Worked for me:-)

    If I didn’t answer well or misunderstood your question, please let me know and I’ll try harder.

  91. Just occurred to me that you may have meant that some foundation activity legislation may incorporate stipulations about funding necessity … however that alone does NOT appropriate funding. Appropriation is always a separate matter, usually annually but occasionally with longer expiration dates. Lack of an annual budget makes this a hazy concept with bureaucrats free to run amok if not watched closely. Which brings us back to your remark about ambiguity. To my knowledge the current administration has never had an annual budget passed by Congress, who lethargically sets up CR’s … I think the ancient Chinese called that kow-towing.😀

    A CR allows considerable discretion by bureaucrats to allocate funds based upon prior periods, in total, but not necessarily proportionate to the appropriations of the prior periods…and there begins the slippery slope and confusion about what funds are applicable where, etc. based on foundation legislation not appropriation.

  92. Hildegard

    Chief Justice Taney told Lincoln that he had no authority to suspend Habeas Corpus and that slaves were property and could not be made citizens.


    Through the links you posted, you are saying that America can’t handle the truth of actually applying the literal words of the Constitution. For example, every bill related to Obama would be nullified upon his impeachment and conviction.

    If Americans can’t handle the truth of the founding documents, the unintended consequences, then someone else is ruling America.

    P.S. To be sure, in a free America with free enterprise, slavery, an economic, labor issue, should have been addressed through private free market economic mechanisms. Lincoln should have remained in the private sector and conducted private free market activities, such as boycotts and divestment, to eliminate slavery. That would have been eminently constitutional. Just as in a free America, the only way to constitutionally effect redistribution of wealth is through private, free market charities.

  93. I’m not sure how exactly you’re disagreeing with me, except that you state that the laws Obama has signed would be nullified if he were impeached and that is clearly not the case and has never been the case. Unless you can show me some convincing evidence I guess we disagree on that. Did you read the Western News Daily article? That explains very clearly, I thought, why impeaching a usurper is unconstitutional. Impeachment is for legitimately elected presidents. (Although since we basically live in a banana republic, we haven’t had fraud-free elections in some time but that’s another story.) A usurper belongs in the criminal justice system

    “If Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but a usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because a usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.”

    The conundrum of removing Obama/Soetoro from office

    And as far as your comments on slavery. Oddly enough, because I doubt many would, i agree with you. Slavery was ended in spite of the civil war, not because of it and look at the results. Blacks for many many years and even to this date are still treated as “less than” although (in my opinion) their overall lot in life has improved. The bigger question is, “Are we ALL slaves?” The answer is yes, but some are more slaves than others. It’s just a matter of degree. http://losethename.com/

    “. Just as in a free America, the only way to constitutionally effect redistribution of wealth is through private, free market charities.” Or voluntary socialism.

  94. This decision is a GREAT win for the Democratic Party going into this Presidential election. What insurance companies want, insurance companies get, and except for a few wrinkles the ACA suits them just fine.

    Expect to see pallets of dark money going to Congressional races in the next year. And bank on this case becoming moot after the next Congress forks over the money.

  95. T. Hall.

    “If you’re half right, you’re half wrong.

    If you’re half wrong, you’re all wrong.”

    Socialism is half communism. Socialism is half wrong. Ergo, socialism is all wrong.

    Free enterprise is ALL right. Freedom and free enterprise are all American.

    Open, free and competitive insurance markets are constitutional.

    Central Planning is unconstitutional communism. Interfering and corrupting markets is unconstitutional.

    All the dark money in the world shall not and cannot subvert the Constitution and shall not and cannot diminish the maximal efficiency of free market competition. If you leave it alone, it will grow.

    That is the mission of the SCOTUS; to assure that actions comport with law. Too bad it doesn’t.

    The singular American failure has been the SCOTUS as it “legislates from the bench.”

    Government is limited to Justice, Tranquility, Common Defence, Promote General Welfare.

    The “blessings of liberty” are freedom and free enterprise without interference by government.

    “…to ourselves and our posterity,…”

    No Central Planning
    No Control of the Means of Production
    No Social Engineering
    No Redistribution of Wealth

    Karl Marx understood that the American founding documents did not include anything close to these principles and, because of that distinct omission, he proposed them in the Communist Manifesto.

    The American thesis is for the people to create (i.e. wealth) and for the government to facilitate creation by the people.

  96. Hildegard,

    I’m saying that America has a false basis; a false history. Lincoln should have been thrown in prison for nullification of the founding documents – the highest of crimes. Obama is not eligible, unconstitutional and illegal – and he knows it.

    That which was done by criminals is itself criminal. It is criminal to perpetuate the criminal acts of criminals.

    The histories of both of these actors should have been revoked and rescinded. Lincoln’s “property-cum-citizens” must be repatriated to properly immigrate from their countries of origin. Obamacare must be entirely revoked and rescinded. Roosevelt’s pure communism of Social Security, Medicare and the “New Deal” must be revoked and rescinded. The “dictatorship of the proletariat,” AKA the Fed/Treasury/Military/Industrial Complex and its allies, the striking government worker unions with their “comparable pay,” must be abolished and disbanded.

    It’s time for the RESET BUTTON. The entire socialist/communist/collectivist welfare state, including Bankster bailouts and floated currency/funny money, must be voided, nullified, revoked and rescinded.

    The Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights must be RESET.

    The Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights must be re-implemented.

  97. “Socialism is half communism. Socialism is half wrong. Ergo, socialism is all wrong. ” I couldn’t agree more. You might like this article: Democratic Socialism is a Lie

    By the way, Bernie Sanders has all but said directly that he supports drug company sponsored forced vaccinations. So much for individual rights and socialist anti-corporatism.

    “The Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights must be re-implemented.” Amen to that. Save the U.S. Constitution; my bumper sticker soon to be replaced with “No More Fake News”.

    Sounds like you’re well informed and on to something. Every day we’re becoming more enslaved. People cannot long for freedom until they fully feel the degree of their enslavement. What keeps us from fully experiencing it? Gurdjieff calls it the “God of self-calming” and we’re all guilty of worshiping that God to varying degrees. Notice the ire you elicit when you try to pull back the curtain of deception by showing the somnambulists something like THIS:

    ” Obama is not eligible, unconstitutional and illegal – and he knows it. ” Oh thank God someone here knows this besides me.

  98. Forgotten: You are all wrong. America lags behind nearly two dozen Socialist nations in whatever unit of measure you care to use; economic, health, education…that last one explains why Americans share your opinions in significant numbers.

    Germany, Norway, Britain, Canada, Japan, they’re kicking our butts, and they own more of this country than Americans do.

    A free market economy is immoral. It’s a football game without rules and without referees. A free market allows insurance companies to deny your claim because your mother or your grandfather smoked. Or drag out your claim in the courts until you die. A free market allows companies to deceive investors by inflating the value of their assets. Gee, when was the last time that happened?

    The real fraud in this country, however, remains the one Americans perpetrate upon themselves when they convince themselves that they can beat the machine in a wide open contest. It explains the allure of Vegas and fantasy football. And Wall St. Forget it, it’s house rules and it’s rigged against you.

    I tell you this for your own good free of charge. You won’t listen. You’ll come back with more the same rambling, long-winded gobbledy-gook you’ve shown in this thread, and more’s the pity for it. In a no-rules game, I’m willing to bet you’re one of those who’ll get hurt the worst.

    Best of luck.

  99. Annie, several top oficials in the Bush Administration and high-level military have spoken of an agreement for US troops to remin in Iraq for very specific purposes. Then comes Obama changing the agreement from our side and claiming your statement of our troops being in legal jeopardy. This was not part of the Bush/Cheney package. Do you really think the Iraqis were too stupid to accept troops to keep the peace? As for trying any of our soldiers legally, the U.S. Wouldn’t accept and Iraqi government would be in jeopardy.are the Iraqi people pleased that U.S. Protection is no longer there? Hard to tell since their heads are gone and cannot speak.

    I would rather build a gigantic wall around the Middle East with a bigger one around Israel. Refugees in Libya, all men no women or children, should be in a walled camp.

  100. […] The United States House of Representatives now will be heard on an issue that drives to the very hea… The House filed this lawsuit after the Administration openly violated the Constitution by paying – and by continuing to pay – billions in public funds to insurance companies under an Affordable Care Act program without any appropriation from Congress. […]

  101. Thanks, John. I used to be a libertarian until I saw the evidence that the system simply doesn’t work.

    If any of these conservative proposals worked, like tax cuts for the wealthy, I’d be all in favor of them. But history has clearly shown what works and what doesn’t. The economy needs rules and referees.

  102. Insanity reins! The American Empire should build a wall around the Middle East, like the Berlin Wall or the Great Wall of China to forever lock in or lock out millions of people because Americans are paranoid and the illegal war in Iraq destroying the country and creating ISIS requires America to perpetually at war. Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate in Economics estimates that the total cost of the Iraq war, including loss of lives, the injured, the cost of rebuilding the country at $3 trillion ( yes, trillion) dollars. Now, you hypocritical so called conservatives are going to spend trillions more? If Congress does not appropriwlate such funds, will Jonathan Turley file another lawsuit?

  103. victorperri … I don’t get your point. Especially the last comment about a lawsuit. The lawsuit is NOT about failure to appropriate, but the executive branch appropriating on its own without Congress at all. Are you saying the executive branch should have this ad hoc appropriation authority independent of whether Congress appropriates or not?

  104. Ari, It seems like you are saying that Congress can simply disregard laws that require funding of agencies, or programs, or simply refuse to pay its bills. If that is the case, then we have total power given to the House since it can disregard laws, or agencies it dislikes. I suggest you respond to Mike Appleton’s post on this subject to clairfy your point and his.

  105. It almost seems as if we have a situation in which each one of the three branches of government are vying for power over the other branches. Some commenter’s say that the Judicial has overstepped, some say that the Executive has overstepped, some say the Legislative wants to overstep the others. What gives? Why does it seem that the branches aren’t working together?

  106. randyjet … it’s really very simple. Congress may refuse to fund any activity if the revenue is not in hand. The problem is that Congress has done so on IOU’s to the US citizens (China has barely 11% of our debt) and thus created the problem to begin with…now we’re stuck with it. I will re-read Mike’s post and comment later, if necessary.

    One thing is simple: Legislation that stipulates funding does NOT, repeat N-O-T, provide funding, including the ACA. A law cannot “require” funding….e.g., passage of authorizing legislation does not mandate funding, it simply authorizes funding when and if it is made available….by Congress.

    Saying it another way, in your words about “not paying its bills”…no bills should be generated without PRIOR authorization AND appropriation (separate actions)…please see the Anti-Deficiency Act for details.

    The Executive Branch has no authority to fund anything not appropriated by Congress. The fact we’ve tolerated years of CR’s makes this difficult to discern…give me a CR, in my old “Fed” role, and with very little manipulation, I could probably build you a nice new house with shuffled money.

    Of course I am referring the how laws and appropriations are supposed to act, under the law, like the Anti-Deficiency Act, and the Constitution…lately we seem to not let that bother us very much….so misappropriation now seems normal. Good luck to us.

  107. I personally believe what you wrote was what was intended. Back in the days, there was very little money only for the most important things, defense of the nation, etc. Over time it has been a runaway train (or ship) with our money aboard. The POTUS does not live by those principles and he has captured the keys to the printing press. If only the SCOTUS would, just this once, take those keys away. With the right people at the top we could possibly reclaim some of that China debt over time. It’s not going to be easy.

  108. Annie, people there said the agreement was in place. Without those troops Iraq proved itself incapable of governing, having a trained army, and keeping promises. Why do we keep finding nuclear bits and pieces (the latest a lot of yellow cake)? As to torture, water boarding three people and getting vital info makes it fine by me.why did all those Senators, Hillary is one, look at the info and agree. Except now Hillary says her vote was a mistake. The info was there or it wasn’t, you can’t change what you saw.

    Obama has been the biggest danger of all. I fear for future generations who will suffer due to his Presidency. Part of the job is to interact with congress. “My way or the highway” has been his motto. Impeachment takes too long. One more year, if we survive that!

    I am going on another break from this site!

  109. randyjet … okay, I’ve re-red Mike Appleton’s response and find little to disagree with…except the part about “entitlement” to payment to insurance companies stipulated in the ACA….and then only partially. Said “entitlement” only authorizes a federal expenditure “commitment” not actual payment. He clearly cites malfeasance of both the Executive Branch and the Congress. The “entitlement” part of the ACA, an authorization legislation, does NOT fund payments, it simply authorizes them. By acting ahead of Congress or not forcing Congress to act with appropriation the Executive Branch has violated the Anti-Deficiency Act by creating unfunded obligations and making payments on them. They got away with it so far because of the rules guiding Continuing Resolutions which allowed Health & Human Services to shuffle money from other commitments or obligations to ACA payments, which never had much historic appropriation, if any. One can create a “commitment” based upon authorizing law, but one CANNOT create an “obligation” without citing an appropriation legislation and the funds contained therein. It’s similar to a checking account (in that each appropriation has a running balance) …you can incur a debt and commit to payment of it…but you must have the money in the bank to actually make payment….in federal terms an “obligation” dedicates funds to a particular payment, and allows it to used for that and nothing else. Without appropriation no one in government has the unilateral authority to expend funds from a zero balance. I have/had extensive experience with this facet of government finance as an “authorizing official” and the fiduciary responsibilities therein…e.g., if you screw up the problem of payment follows you home, even if resigned or retired.

    THIS is the problem with operating on CR’s for so many years…like I said, under a CR in my prior role as a “Fed” I could take historic “Construction General” appropriation Fund levels, shuffle some money, and build you a nice house…it’s “construction” right? With the weak oversight now in play vis a vis CR’s if questioned on why I built randyjet a house I could probably claim you were performing work for DOD, however little it might be, and needed the facility. I might even be able to use “Operations & Maintenance” historic funding levels to justify maintaining your house, paying for utilities, etc.

    Of course my example of your house above is intentionally absurd, but not impossible. We had one guy who used “Transportation” funds for purchasing himself a nice new Mustang. It took a while before someone figured him out. He’d buried it within his “Government Purchase Card” (Visa) account (he had a warrant for $1 million…which meant that the car dealer was not on the hook), which shows less detail than obligating and cutting a government check per se. He was fired and forced to re-pay the funds.

  110. Ari, Thanks for the info, and I see where the problems come in and the reason for the murky situation. I got screwed on a CR when the GOP last had control of the Congress and could only pass two funding bills out of 14 that had to be passed. The bill for the FAA reauthorization never came to a vote, and a CR was done which kicked out our raising the age limit amendment for 121 pilots. I could not believe the GOP was so incompetent that they let that bill die along with the others.

  111. Ari,

    You will find little to disagree with when Mike put up a post. They are fact driven and appeals to logic rather than emotional flag burning.

    One thing that should be noted, when the ACA was passed, insurance companies were buying each others portfolios out. Some small one were paying billions for the companies. This Act was the best thing that ever happened for insurance companies. Just like mandatory auto insurance, now health insurance is mandatory. Who is getting rich off of thid scheme, of course the insurance industry.


    You are also correct.

  112. Samuel … [epistle warning:-) ] I already know that vis a vis Mike Appleton’s posts or comments. That is why I said I’d have to re-read it to see if I’d missed something. My exception to what Mike said was minor, truth be told….most likely in saying things differently rather than in opposition. I am very sure Mike Appleton knows how the legislation & appropriation system is supposed to work.

    What bothers me is that we, as a populace, have grown used to the machinations under CR’s (7 years now?) and now it seems, to me at least, that few of us understand how budgets, authorizing legislation, and funding appropriations work…let alone the “why” of it all. We’ve grown used to the absence of a real budget….so it falls out of our consciousness. CR’s essentially let Congress abdicate their own authority and responsibility…and allow the Executive Branch to run amok. Suicide by ambivalence by Congress, both parties, IMO. If up to me, as King of course (I’d be a benevolent King😀 right?), I’d allow no CR for a period over 30 days, and allow no repeat by more than 30 days…then either pass a budget or shut down the government. Really shut it down….no nothing for nobody:-) I am pretty sure that’d shake up a lot of people…and re-focus their thinking.

    I spent way too much time working on my unit’s portion of the Executive Budget to have it all be for naught. When we had real “budgets” we seldom got all or even most of what we asked for, at times, but at least it was done by a normal process without the murky mist of CR’s. We asked for X and got Y … it was done legitimately by Congress, not edict (illegally) by the Executive Branch. When Congress didn’t give us what we asked for we knew we had to prepare a better argument next time, or re-think our proposals. That made our work to submit am Executive Budget portion worth the trouble…these days I really don’t know how agencies, DOD or otherwise, manage it at all. The CR’s have made most of the government lazy and manipulative. Not sure which is worse. Likely both.

    When I consult today with my old office I have to be very careful with the FOUO portions of budgetary matters (always FOUO in DOD or DA)..e.g., what I suggest, since FOUO (For Offical Use Only) is a form of classification. Unlike Hillary I have no misconceptions about what that means. Back in the day I had a quarterly obligation to shred a document issued by TACOM to all units, vis a vis matériel deficiencies, when they did not apply to equipment we managed….and had to restrict the elements that did apply. FOUO means no dissemination, period….even by accident. The shredding (About 3+ hours over a big shredder) was a necessary pain in the behind, but none-the-less worthwhile. Who wants an enemy to have a nice precise document about the deficiencies of an M1A1 Abrams tank? My organization had no tanks, so shredding was required. I still doubt other units we so diligent and don’t doubt the enemy had the info anyway….just not from through or by me.

    When the “classification” is higher than FOUO today I cannot see it since I now lack a CAC card and a clearance by “Role” and I do not need to do so. I can advise in the abstract when necessary without ever seeing the classified material. I do not need or want any “gray suits” at my front door. If I accidentally see “classified” text (v-e-r-y rare) I redact entirely immediately and advise who ever sent it to me to be more careful in the future. See, Hillary is a liar when she says she didn’t handle classified material, even if “marked” or not …any response or forwarding wipes out the classification markings. Passing it thorough a private server assures it. No one who works with similar materials is fooled a bit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s