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
You are presuming that those few words uttered, have been mastered.
Nick, don’t waste your time with anyone that refuses to put our rule of law first.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Samuel, Must have been a great happy hour.
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.