This afternoon, Judge Rosemary Collyer issued her ruling on the motion by the Administration to forego a ruling on the merits in the United States House of Representatives v. Burwell, a challenge brought by the House to unilateral action taken by the Administration under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). After losing its motion to dismiss the case on standing grounds, the Administration sought (over the objections of the House) to remove the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia without ruling on the merits of the case. Judge Collyer denied the motion and set the case for final briefing and ultimately a final ruling.
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.” The Administration has long argued that it has the authority to order the payment of what will amount to $175 billion over the next ten years to insurance companies without an appropriation of funds by Congress, notwithstanding Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution which provides that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” 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. Regardless of the outcome, the public deserves an answer to this fundamental constitutional question.
Judge Collyer’s decision is linked below.
I would again like to thank our extraordinary team in this litigation. 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. It is an honor to be part of this team and this case.
Jonathan Turley
Lead Counsel, United States House of Representatives v. Burwell
*Leaves*
Raising taxes on multimillionaires and billionaires leVes no one homeless. Medical debt actually does.
To Annie, it is amazing to me that you would choose “free healthcare for all” in exchange for a country of laws. I beg you to please see past your focus on the content and instead understand the importance of the underlying issue on which Turley is thankfully representing. We are partly in this mess because this Administration and Congress depend on our apathy and ignorance! If we become a country ruled by individuals instead of a country governed by a code of laws, none of us will have healthcare. By the way, it is the Democrats who created this bad, convoluted policy and then forced it through Congress. The result is hundreds of millions of our dollars are being funneled to insurance companies to “keep them quiet.” On a personal note, since the Affordable Healthcare Act has passed, my health insurance premiums have increased 81.6% with no improvement in coverage and a deductible of $5,000 so it hasn’t been so affordable for me.
Annie
I wonder how it must feel to know one’s participation in this lawsuit might cause others to have no health insurance, meaning no health care.
I suspect it feels the same as when someone votes in a Democrat knowing they will raise taxes, which by this logic means their actions cause others to become homeless and lose their health insurance.
So says you, hskiprob.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2009/03/11-capitalism-galston
The U.S. is Still a Capitalist Country
As the New Deal took shape, Franklin Roosevelt was accused of undermining capitalism. His response was that he was saving capitalism, not least from itself. And he turned out to be right. Today, in the midst of another economic crisis, cries of “socialism” once again abound. There is every reason to believe that these charges, too, will prove to be overwrought. Even if all of Barack’s Obama’s proposals were adopted, the United States would remain a capitalist country
Annie, we’re not a capitalist system. Our money is not even free market derived. Capitalism means unfettered. What part of our economic system is not effected by voluminous amounts of government interventions? Are you just pulling my chain or have you just never taken an economics class or at least a good one?
That is the basic problem with the left and right arguments. You define our system as capitalist, where I define it as fascist. Our system is regulated from the top down which is the motive of the ruling oligarchy. This way they can control almost all major economic activities. A central bank is the 5th platform of communism and you consider that Capitalistic? A high progressive of graduated income tax is the 2nd platform of communism and you see that as capitalism. Do I really need to keep going because it is a very long list of socialistic/communistic policies that our society has embraced.
Do you understand that the ownership by government of both FNMA and Freddie Mac is a communistic economic policy? The ownership of a business by the State. A combination of the 1st and 7th platforms of communism by the beloved Karl Marx as noted in his book The Communist Manifesto.
The truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
Oops, sorry BarkinDog … it was doglover who brought up the VA. Please pardon my mistaken idognity!
I never mentioned the VA or its health care system.
I said that we need to take away free health care for Congressmen and women. Let them take some of their salary and go buy some Blue Cross. Why do they get free medical care for life?
Maybe the Congressmen who repudiate their own free health care might have some standing to repudiate health care for others.
“Ask your doctor.” How many times a day is that phrase said on television ads. I would not ask a doctor itShay about Viagra or other drugs.
This lawsuit is nothing more than a political ploy by the Republican House. Professor Turley’s motives might be above reproach, but the motives of the Republicans certainly are not IMO. If the Congress’s motives were pure we would’ve seen them bring forth lawsuits concerning other policies they have said Obama overstepped on, like the Drone Program. Maybe because when they agree with the ‘overstepping’ they aren’t too concerned about it? I call out the Republicans for their hypocrisy and cowardice.
hsk, Obama just wanted a law passed and then hope he got the right judge[s] to let him “interpret” the law as he saw fit. That’s the Chicago Way. There is info coming out about the drone program run by Obama that is horrifying.
Bedar. you are correct. That is however because we have embraced a public/private partnership with a system so convoluted that companies are having to hire other companies just to let them know what the rules are. I wonder if Obama even read his own bill?
JT has spoken passionately and righteously about this Uber Presidency of Obama. Some folks just don’t have the intellect and/or intellectual honesty to understand JT’s motivation in taking on this case. Steve Groen makes a superb analogy w/ the ACLU and despicable Nazi’s marching in Skokie. It was a hard one to defend for the ACLU, but they understood the principle of free speech, particularly political speech. That was decades ago, I sometimes wonder if the ACLU would do the right thing now, in these PC times.
If greed wasn’t so deeply entrenched in our Capitalist system, we too would join the modern countries that have some form of Universal Healthcare. In the meantime we can just bicker amongst ourselves.
Oh! Canada! (music) Look north and inquire with inquiring minds into the Canadian health system.
Right now the U.S. has the worst system (or lack thereof) in the developed world.
This entire lawsuit is not about the ACA/Obamcare, even though the liberals want to pretend that is the reason.
The impetus might have been the EGREGIOUS spending by the Administration on Obamacare, but the reality is that this Administration and previous Administrations have been violating the Constitution by spending money that has not been appropriated by Congress. The Constitution is quite clear that Congress is in charge of the purse strings.
If an Administration can spend money without authorization and make laws bypassing Congress, then we no longer have a Representative Republic and are in danger of having a Dictatorship.
It doesn’t matter if you like, hate or love Obamacare or whether the current President is a Democrat or Republican, you should be very afraid of this trend of one person seizing the power that Constitutionally belongs to the Congress and the people who elected those representatives.
Why is the President’s feet being held to the fire, while the cowardly Congress gets a pass when it comes to doing their jobs as the Constitution mandated? We have others here who think all The Supreme Court has usurped their power? Why focus in only on the Executive branch?
Steve, it looks like the Congress isn’t as equally concerned about the assasination program, or funding for all the military conflicts we are engaged in. Why does the Congress whimp out on demanding that the President come to them for war powers that are now outdated. They don’t seem to mind one bit that the wars are being funded without Congressional approval. Why have they not impeached the President if this is so egregious?
What hiskiprob wrote at 5:10PM, and not half as well.
Annie writes, “Why have they not impeached the President if this is so egregious?”
Because the overwhelming majority of them are bought and paid for prostitutes worshiping the super-wealthy.
Annie writes, “If the subsidies are lost by people who depend on them to afford their health insurance, we will see exactly what this lawsuit has wrought. I wonder how it must feel to know one’s participation in this lawsuit might cause others to have no health insurance, meaning no health care.”
This is true, but there’s no room for diluting the constitutional mandate.
When the ACLU advocates the KKK’s right to free speech and association, it may not serve everyone’s interests, but it serves the greater good by enforcing constitution law.
Look at poor Wiliam Marbury with his midnight appointment as a Justice of the Peace by President John Adams. Mr. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court directly for a writ of mandamus to force the new Jefferson Administration’s Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his appointment. The Supreme Court answered ‘no,’ sacrificing the appointment to strike down an unconstitutional act of Congress which stated Mr. Marbury could bring his writ directly to the Supreme Court. However, the Constitution gives the Supreme Court only limited original (initial subject-matter) jurisdiction and a writ of mandamus isn’t one of them.
In a more broad context, Congress needs to sue or impeach Obama for his assassination program, data-mining, and a host of other unconstitutional acts. And while he or she is at it, move onto the torture program of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Annie, the reason people can’t afford healthcare is systematic and a result of many things like licensure laws, excessive taxation and regulations.
Do you want the majority of people to be able to care for themselves or not? Why take money from people in taxes and then subsidize their healthcare if you want everyone to have healthcare?
I don’t see one Presidential Candidate promoting an exemption for the 1st $50,000 of personal income for everyone. What is with the wealthy in this country wanting to tax the middle and lower classes to a point they have little or no disposable income? The left is just as bad as the right. I really should say the socialist are just as bad as the fascist because that is what they really are.
By the way Steve, great comment. You should be aware though Steve, those on the left side of the isle do not care much about the constitution, until it suits their needs and then they are like a little child hugging their rag doll.
The communists are very upset today.
They have a RIGHT to other people’s money, don’t you know?
Strike for above market wages. Strike for “free” entitlements. Strike for “help me” affirmative action.
Strike. Strike. Strike.
Hard work and merit? We don’t need no stinkin’ hard work and merit.
Freedom and self-reliance? We don’t need no stinkin’ freedom and self-reliance.
__________
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
Is it just me or do you think this case warrants a determination by more Judges. Has not, to much power in the hands of to few people yielded way to many poor judicial decisions over our history. This is not the dark ages with a pony express system. We the People could now take over all constitutional decisions. I’ve even proposed a system as a starting point to get people to at least start thinking along these lines. Rather than Judges being appointed by Politicians, those who want to become Judges would have to get the signatures of a large number of registered voters who could drop you like a rock if they were not represented. I would surely keep an close eye on the Judge I endorsed.
I agree that this would be a bit scary, but in reality it would eliminate a large sector of our society; those who have no clue as to how our political system and rule of law even works. It would surely create a more democratic society and it would weed out most of the poorly educated from participating. Yes, I am one of those people that think many people do not have the socio-economic knowledge to be able to vote for the lesser of two evils. I think that the Judges would end up being far superior in both intellect and integrity. It could also be a part time job because many more Judges could be involved and thus a much lighter case load per Judge.
There is also ways to benefit those that participate the most and make the best decisions. I’ve long thought that decentralizing power is the only potential means of repairing the scales of justice.
As JR noted, the only interesting part of this case is going to be what rationale the Judge uses to side with the Government. A bit of a defeatist but honest attitude. The proverbial “rubber stamp”?
We’re going into the 21st century and our system of justice I’m told although not perfect it is the best in the world. I can only say that It must suck even more to be the rest of the world.
We can change this or we can keep trying to decide if we should elect twiddle dee or twiddle dumb. Trying to decide which one of these folks is lying the least and more importantly what special interests they are really representing is a friggin waste of time. We just don’t want to admit it.