Posted on 05/29/2015 7:56:45 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
Since Obamacare was passed in 2010, dozens of changes have been made to the legislation by executive fiat, not through Congress. One of those changes includes the Obama administration going around Congress to issue payments from the Treasury Department directly to health insurance companies. Another change is President Obama's February 2014 action to delay the Obamacare employer mandate, which requires companies with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance under the law. By implementing the delay, the administration effectively altered the law without a vote from Congress.
In November 2014, the House of Representatives sued over the changes coming directly from the White House. Liberal George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley has been hired by the House to lead the lawsuit against the administration. The administration wants the lawsuit thrown out.
Yesterday the case was argued in front of U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, who seriously questioned the administration's actions of going around Congress to fund parts of Obamacare that the legislative body rejected. She also scolded DOJ attorney Joel McElvain for failing to provide a legitimate argument about why the lawsuit should be tossed. From Reuters:
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, appointed by Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, repeatedly interrupted U.S. Justice Department lawyer Joel McElvain during the hearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Justice Department lawyers argue that the House lacks standing to sue, citing a section of U.S. law that means the House would have to prove it has been directly harmed.
"So it is 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?" she asked.
McElvain argued that the merits of the case were not being discussed at the hearing, and that any perceived injury was "abstract."
"I'm not asking you to give me your brief. I want you to explain ... why it's not an insult to the Constitution?" Collyer said.
McElvain argued that the House could pass new legislation if it disagreed with the administration's changes, which he said were legal under "pre-existing permanent appropriation."
At another point, Collyer admonished McElvain: "You can't just shake your head and not deal with the question."
Collyer will make a decision about whether the lawsuit from the House against the administration can proceed within the next few weeks.
I am hoping that there are enough judges remaining who still believe in the validity of the Constitution.
No such thing.
Well. What can you expect from an administration that filters its critical applicants by race, socialist/fascist/communist/rabid Democrat quotient?
Exactly. No congress (by design, NO House body) can obligate or commit a future body (HOUSE) to financial commitments.
Further, the Senate is not a body that can obligate funding. That the responsibility of the House.
“pre-existing permanent appropriation.”
Sounds like legal mumbo-jumbo for “a license to steal” to me.
Hope away, but I do not believe the courts will save us from ObamaCare. Especially if legislative remedy is available, and with the GOPe or Obama's pen, fat chance of that happening.
Uh, just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean there’s no such thing.
Down in the vault next to Obama’s birth certificate they keep the secret laws no one’s heard of, until they need them.
Including the law which permits retroactive application of prospective legislation that Congress doesn’t know about yet, and only the President knows about, because of executive privilege. Everyone’s always done it. What difference at this point does it make? You didn’t built that. Forget it, Marge, it’s Chinatown.
What the Administration is arguing is that the only check and balance on Presidential power is impeachment.
BINGO!
And they are double-dog daring McConnell and Boehner to do anything about it.
And rather than just cowering in the corner, Mitch & John have shed all pretense of being an opposition party ....
Johnny, you can stand up to those mean Conservatives like Mitch does. Just don't cry about it!
BTTT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.