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
It’s already happened, it was called the Bush Administration. We should’ve sued him too.
Darren:
Excellent point. The real issue is the uber presidency we have allowed to take root.
Although it will benefit me financially, improve my access to health care, and have numerous other benefits to me personally, as well as millions of other people, if the case against the government prevails, that is just a happy coincidence.
Those who support a President’s unlawful use of power will rue the day when a President of an opposing party benefits from that precedent.
Karen S writes, “Those who support a President’s unlawful use of power will rue the day when a President of an opposing party benefits from that precedent.”
While your statement is undoubtedly true, you don’t think Obama is benefiting from such precedent?
“I believe in regime change.”
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” –State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003
“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories … And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.” –Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003
Or is it just the fish that benefit?
“I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.”
LOL! JAddams, people are trying to prove wrong all the time, and they almost always fail. It is an open secret, when having cocktails, Dems will tell you what an arrogant prick Obama is. I’m talking about personal disgust. Dems always stick together on votes. Although your cult leader was flop sweating on that Iran vote, wasn’t he???
Believer,
Please delineate any differences between Communist China and Free Enterprise America.
Both engage in:
Central Planning
Control of the Means of Production
Social Engineering
Redistribution of Wealth
Both rule by committee.
China entertains no vote of the population.
America engages in the subterfuge of “one man, one vote democracy.”
Does anyone still promote the myth that America represents freedom, not the slavery of communism?
Alibaba challenges Amazon.
America lost its freedom in Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror” which was facilitated by a Supreme Court.
Incremental communism won.
“We will bury you,” Nikita Khrushchev.
Imagine that. They did.
Olly, to date, no one has produced any climate or weather petition that “97% of scientists” have signed and agree to. Bizarrely, media outlets and fellow-traveler, parasitic, collectivist liberals accept the wholly unsubstantiated “97%” statement. The only vague agreement of scientists is on a nebulous, “political” utterance about there being some possibility that something is causing variable weather, AKA “climate change.” Duh!
Any liberal enviro-whackos receiving this message on whatever planet you occupy today, please forward the document on which “97% of scientists agree.”
Sorry, I disagree with the statement that the “U.S. is Still a Capitalist Country”. In reality, it is being changed as we type. There is no law or Constitutional Amendment that “”O”” won’t break. He will first say he doesn’t have the power to usurp, but he then will do exactly what he says he cannot do. The Congress is so afraid of causing a shutdown because when “O” says he will veto any Bill they send to him that he doesn’t like, the Republicans are afraid to act or they will get the blame for the shut down. Hence they have rendered themselves useless. In reality, this whole presidency is a fraud and “”Barry” has said he cannot run but has insisted that he could beat Trump. Either the country is asleep or refuses to believe the inevitable, he in all probability has a plan to once more do exactly the thing he said he could not do.
He stated in “Dreams of My Father” and also in one of the interviews he had as a candidate that he believed in a one party system. I believe him as he is systematically moving in that direction. Either this country wakes up and swings into action or we will be a one party system much sooner than you realize.
The second 4 years was to complete the plans he formulated in the first four years. Next is confiscation of guns and he asked for an army for him in the first Bill he passed after being voted into the Presidency (which no one bothered to read and those who did… asked “Why does he need an army, he has the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard, Homeland Security, Border Patrol, Shore Patrol and all the other special forces, etc.).
NOW you can add the armed Environmental Protection Agency, Black Lives Matter and all the illegals he has allowed into the country (which we support, feed and house) along with adding thousands of healthy men and boys seeking refugee status from the middle east. (The pictures show mostly males, young men and very healthy with few women and children). Seems that the men and boys would be signing up to fight with the UN or some other country to defend their homeland, instead, “O” is bringing in the army he wanted when he took office. He is adding up to 100,000 refugees (many of whom could be ISIS, plus he has the UN available to him.
NO, we are no longer a free Capitalistic country, we are well on our way to being a Muslim Country. OH yes,……he said he believes in Christ but he demeans the Christians constantly and defends the Muslim Religion with every breath. ………………………….Just my thoughts
Socialism is pre-communism.
Socialists are communists afraid to “come out.”
Socialism is incremental communism.
Communists call themselves Socialists to make themselves acceptable.
_____
Freedom vs. Slavery
Free Enterprise vs. Parasitism
_____
Which one did the Founding Fathers establish?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/judge-quick-appeal-house-lawsuit-health-care-law-34581091
The disputed subsidies help lower-earning people afford out-of-pocket costs, including annual insurance deductibles and co-payments when they visit doctors.
These are different from the subsidies the law provides that lower the premiums lower-income people pay for coverage they buy from federal or state insurance market places. The Supreme Court upheld those subsidies this summer, rejecting a challenge from the law’s opponents.
*************
I wasn’t aware that the subsidies in dispute are ones that help low income people afford out of pocket costs and has nothing to do with the subsidies that help pay the premiums. Was anyone else aware of the nature of these disputed subsidies?
Lots of opportunities for congressional Democrats to display their alleged ‘detestation’ of Obama. It’s called voting. And it hasn’t happened.
Nick is wrong.
The most important factor of this lawsuit and the American experience is whether natural or God-given law and the clear and literal words of the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights are implemented and perpetuated with eminent fidelity by the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, most importantly and directly by the Supreme Court, which is sworn to uphold them under the penalty of impeachment and conviction.
Socialism is the “climate change” answer to capitalism; “settled” economic science.
Obama does not like to deal w/ Congress. And, I’m not just talking Republicans. Dem Congress members detest Obama because he treats them like red headed step children. At the core of his Uber Presidency is Obama’s aloof narcissism and belief he can do as he wishes. JT is one of the few people w/ the stones to challenge Obama. JT might need a food taster if this case proceeds.
Did someone say, “fair taxes?”
Fair taxation is everyone paying the same.
To see a movie or experience the thrill rides at the carnival, we all pay the same.
Every individual pays the price of a ticket to occupy the amusement park.
Fair tax is every citizen paying the same amount as they all derive the same “benefit.”
It is impossible for one individual to benefit to a greater degree or differently than another.
What you really mean is bias and tilt the “playing field” in my direction.
What you want is to ‘fundamentally transform” other people’s money into your pockets.
You don’t want “fair” because you can’t compete in “fair.”
You can’t be honest because you don’t want the truth of your dishonesty know.
You prevaricate and obfuscate as professional parasites.
Take care of yourself? Never happen.
You require and demand other people’s money.
Fair?
YOU CAN’T HANDLE “FAIR.”
The most important factor of this lawsuit is not the merits of the ACA or any ramifications resulting from a judgment against the ACA, it is whether a president can constitutionally extract monies from the treasury in circumvention of Congress.
One has to look at the larger picture here. Even if the ACA was magically morphed by future legislation into a fully functioning system the question of this or any future president’s actions of this type would not have been answered.
It is important to recognize that once a president starts actions such as these that are against your political goals, then you will demand that a similar lawsuit be exacted against a president who you feel has exceeded his constitutional authority. But many who are against this lawsuit link it to either their support of the ACA or their support that their political goals align with the president who feels that he needs to circumvent Congress because it fails to act.
The important aspect to realize here is that the president cannot justify his actions because Congress did not give him permission, therefore necessity dictated these actions. If Congress could not come to a clear consensus to authorize authority it is just as much a revocation of authority as it is a vote prohibiting the president from certain actions. We don’t have absolute monarchs as chief executives. Even in businesses if a CEO circumvents the boards of directors or the shareholders it is a violation of the corporate charter.
http://www.newsweek.com/what-if-boehner-wins-his-lawsuit-against-obama-259016
What If Boehner Wins His Lawsuit Against Obama?
The problem is, How do you allow an exception for this suit without opening the door to a new role for the judiciary to adjudicate political disputes?
If Boehner succeeds in getting his day in court, Grove said, “virtually any dispute between Congress and the president could wind up in court.”
“I think that’s a legitimate fear. We don’t want to replace the political process with litigation,” Adler said. “Can that line be drawn crisply enough here that a court will feel comfortable with it? I don’t know.”
“Heretofore in our national history, the President’s failure to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ could only be brought before a judicial tribunal by someone whose concrete interests were harmed by that alleged failure,” Scalia wrote. But under Alito’s proposed standing doctrine, the current system “would be replaced by a system in which Congress and the Executive can pop immediately into court, in their institutional capacity, whenever the President refuses to implement a statute he believes to be unconstitutional, and whenever he implements a law in a manner that is not to Congress’s liking.”
According to Scalia, “The opportunities for dragging the courts into disputes hitherto left for political resolution are endless.””
****************
Just something to think about. Will this be another Pandora’s Box?
Ultimately we see why leftists believe as they do: they simply don’t understand reality.
THIS can’t be stressed enough. The economic ignorance displayed is staggering. They ignore reality. Ignore the repercussions of their actions that anyone with half a brain could foresee and are amazed at the “unexpected” outcomes.
They were warned over and over by people who have been in the insurance industry and those who deal with economic issues on a daily basis what the fiscal outcome of Obamacare would be. It came to pass and STILL they deny the reality of the situation.
Facepalm doesn’t even begin to describe the reaction to such stupidity.
When you have time, work on correcting the unconstitutional laws and amendments that erroneously persist.
The 14th amendment is unconstitutional. The “property,” freed slaves that were not U.S. citizens, for the benefit of which the 14th amendment was passed, had no standing. Further, the amendment causes the U.S. to forfeit sovereignty and control as the amendment forfeits and transfers the authority to establish immigration policy to foreign citizens who come to America to give birth to a child of foreign citizens.
The effect of the Emancipation Proclamation was confiscation of private property by government. The Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional.
The “Reconstruction Amendments” were prosecuted for the benefit of parties without standing, such as “property” and freed slaves who were not U.S. citizens and only subject to immediate deportation as compassionate repatriation. These amendments were compelled and ratified without a quorum, through coercion, and under duress of war and its aftermath.
The effect of affirmative action and “Fair Housing” law is confiscation of private property and governmental imposition of a bias, other than the bias of the owner of the private property and the bias of free individuals, which is antithetical to the American concept of freedom. . Affirmative action and “Fair Housing” laws are unconstitutional.
All forms of redistribution of wealth violate the right to personal, moveable and real private property. Government has no authority to take private property from one man to give private property to another. Government has the power only to impose taxes for usual, customary, limited and delineated governmental operations, such as security and infrastructure. Direct cash “welfare” payments, affirmative action, social services, WIC, HUD, HHS, Agriculture, Labor, Education, Social Security, Medicare, ACA, Medicaid, HARP, HAMP, Student Loans, union strike laws, anti-replacement hiring laws, unionization of governmental workers, anti-guest worker laws, “comparable pay” and all other forms of governmental redistribution of wealth are antithetical and unconstitutional.
Charity is an industry that may be vigorously and voluntarily pursued in the private sector.
You have much work to do to correct the perpetual jurisprudential failures or ideological strategies of the Supreme Court.
P.S. Understanding that the Founders required “good men” to perpetuate the nation, you have a duty to faithfully implement the literal words of the founding documents and not cavalier perversions or false “interpretations.”
__
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
“…if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded.”
Noah Webster
Annie
Raising taxes on multimillionaires and billionaires leVes no one homeless.
America has literally never raised taxes only on millionaires and billionaires, and if we did it wouldn’t raise enough to pay for anything. Ultimately we see why leftists believe as they do: they simply don’t understand reality.
Get rid of Obamacare once Medicare for All or something similar is in effect. Do people really believe that a for profit company will keep rates down, even sans Obamacare? Living in a fool’s paradise. Health care costs keep rising, without price controls as they have in various modern countries, the cost of healthcare will continue to rise, no matter WHO pays for it. We need a modern, intelligent form of Universal Healthcare. What holds this country back from figuring it out? Greed.