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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The insanity is strong here.
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.
“…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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Philly, it seems to being out the conspiracy theorists as well. Curious.
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!
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/10/when-progressive-policies-cause-creative-destruction/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=51b61dce60-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-51b61dce60-79248369
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!
Dang…I messed up the coding. Seems to be a habit of mine…pbbfft.
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.