The 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
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.
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! !
IF I LOOSE MY INSURANCE BECAUSE OF THIS PIG, YOU CAN BET I WILL EXERCISE MY 2ND AMENDMENT
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?
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.
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?
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.
Jon
You do know that if law isn’t found in the buybull it isn’t legal…
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.
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.
dutchjim,
Since it all functions as one administrative state then:
YES
“Another waste of taxpayer monies and time, Prof. Turley should be ashamed.”
Frank,
If the feds gutted your personal bank account, would you believe it was not worth your time or money to get it back?
Who’s the tyrant?
King Obama or the Congress that cares more about the short term profits of big corporations?
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.
Not.
Justice Ginsberg denigrated and disparaged the U.S. Constitution to foreign citizens in a foreign country.
This undermining and debasement cannot stand.
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.
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.”