|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
The Daily Signal
What You Need
to Know About the House’s Obamacare Lawsuit
Melissa Quinn
May 28, 2015
The U.S. House of Representatives had its first day in court today
after filing a lawsuit against the Obama administration for making
unilateral changes to the Affordable Care Act in November. Now, a
district judge must rule on whether the case will proceed.
Lawyers representing the Obama administration and the House of
Representatives gathered today before U.S. District Judge Rosemary
Collyer for the first hearing in a lawsuit challenging President
Obama’s changes to the health care law—namely his delay of the employer
mandate and the authorization of payments from the Treasury Department
to insurance providers.
Congress, the House of Representatives contends, did not appropriate
funds for those payments, which will cost taxpayers more than $175
billion over the next 10 years.
The House and its lawyer, George Washington University law professor
Jonathan Turley, argue these changes to the law violate the
Constitution and are suing the Departments of Treasury and Health and
Human Services.
“In challenging these actions, this case addresses fundamental issues
regarding the limits of executive power under our constitutional form
of government, and the continued viability of the separation of powers
doctrine upon which ‘the whole American fabric has been erected,’”
Turley wrote in documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia. “This lawsuit thus raises issues of exceptional
importance, not only to plaintiff United States House of
Representatives, but also to the entire nation.”
Justice Department lawyers, led by Joel McElvain, motioned to have the
lawsuit dismissed on the basis that the House lacks the legal standing
to challenge the administration in court.
McElvain and the government argue U.S. law mandates that the House is
required to prove it has been harmed in order to have standing.
“The U.S. House of Representatives now asks this court to decide a
generalized, institutional dispute between the executive branch and one
chamber of the legislative branch concerning the proper interpretation
of federal law,” McElvain argued in documents filed with the court.
“This novel tactic is unprecedented, and for good reason: the House has
no standing to bring this suit.”
However, according to several reports, Collyer—who was appointed by
President George W. Bush—repeatedly pushed McElvain today over his
arguments for why the case should be dismissed.
“So is it your position that if the House of Representatives
affirmatively voted not to fund something … then that vote can be
ignored by the administration, because after all, no one can sue them?”
Collyer asked McElvain.
Despite her pressure on the government, Collyer has not yet ruled on
whether the case will be dismissed.
In an interview with The Daily Signal, Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal
fellow at The Heritage Foundation, pointed to the constitutional
infringements cited by the House as reason for why the case should
proceed.
“This lawsuit talks about specific injury and a specific misuse of
funds by the executive branch,” he said. “This makes it a very basic
constitutional issue, which is that the executive branch cannot spend
money unless it’s been specifically appropriated by Congress. That’s
been true for the 200 plus years we’ve been a country, no matter what
the issue is.”
Von Spakovsky went on to cite the authorization of the lawsuit by the
full House as further evidence the lower chamber has standing.
“This throws this case on a completely different plane,” he said,
contrasting this case with others in which just one or two
lawmakers—such as Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson’s attempt to
sue the administration—file suit.
However, Timothy Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University
School of Law, said the House cannot prove it has been harmed, which is
required under U.S. law.
“We have a constitutional system where Congress has certain powers and
responsibilities, and the president has certain powers and
responsibilities, and the courts have certain powers and
responsibilities,” he said. “When Congress can’t get its act together
to enforce its will, then it’s not legitimate for Congress to turn to
the courts to sue the president, any more than it is for the president
to sue Congress.”
“It has the power of the purse and the power to hold investigatory
hearings, which it’s exercising,” Jost continued. “It’s not legitimate
for [the House] to sue the courts to force the administration to do
what it wants it to do.”
House Speaker John Boehner first announced he would pursue a lawsuit
against the Obama administration in July 2014, which the House voted to
authorize. The lawsuit was postponed until November, though, after two
lawyers who initially represented the lower chamber dropped out. Turley
is now representing the House.
“The very fact that the administration wants to avoid scrutiny—judicial
or otherwise—shows you why this challenge is important,” Boehner said
in a statement yesterday. “No one—especially the president—is above
accountability to the Constitution and the rule of law.”
Republicans in both chambers of Congress have frequently criticized the
president for unilaterally changing different provisions of Obamacare
without consulting Congress, and this case is one of many filed against
the administration over the health care law.
Read this and other articles with links at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|