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
@ 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.
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
http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/321969/#xuPG22FluJEWWzmY.99
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Turley has an obvious conflict of interest here. This is just concern trolling based on an opportunity for face time.
This article posted in it’s entirety ‘Finding Truth in an Illusory World’ …. Thanks!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdnY8r7_fLw
http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/impact-of-obamacare
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.
What’s orange and sleeps 3 comfortably?
A city streets dept. truck.
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.”
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…
Lisa N using the classic “I know you are, but what am I?” defense.
You must have consulted Harvey Richards. Lawyer for Children:
http://boingboing.net/2012/04/18/tom-the-dancing-bug-harvey-r.html
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.