# House of reps wins historic ruling in constitutional challenge under the aca



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Great news.



> This afternoon, Judge Rosemary Collyer issued a final ruling in United States House of Representatives v. Burwell, the challenge to unilateral actions taken by the Administration under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Judge Collyer ruled in favor of the House of Representatives and found that the Administration violated the Constitution in committing billions of dollars from the United States Treasury without the approval of Congress. The historic ruling reaffirms the foundational "power of the purse" that was given to the legislative branch by the Framers.
> 
> In 2015, Judge Collyer rejected an effort by the Administration to bar consideration of the merits of the challenge, thereby setting the stage for her to rule on whether the Administration has violated 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."
> 
> Today Judge Collyer ruled squarely for the House in finding the Administration's actions to be unconstitutional and that its claims "cannot surmount the plain text [of the law]."


https://jonathanturley.org/2016/05/12/house-of-representatives-wins-historic-ruling-in-constitutional-challenge-under-the-aca/#more-98897


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

Good things do happen ,, there is hope for us after all .


----------



## Oddcaliber (Feb 17, 2014)

Looks like the end for Obummer care!


----------



## txmarine6531 (Nov 18, 2015)

Oddcaliber said:


> Looks like the end for Obummer care!


Let's hope so!


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Thomas Jefferson.

I copied this from another members tagline, going to send it to my daughter in college at U of M, Minneapolis.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

However, ruling is meaningless as it has been stayed pending appeal. And when it goes in front of an Obama friendly court it will be over turned. The Supreme court will be of no help to us.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Reading the article, the opinion and the comments of the people on that site simply amazes me how things get twisted turned, worded and viewed so askew of reality.

As the main article alludes that ACA is fine as written and says there is no restriction on 1402 payment (even says early payment) and says the congress simply Must appropriate it..the use of must being key to what I am saying here...they simply MUST appropriate it...as in can be viewed as a judicial mandate that the law is not being followed unless it is appropriated. So many see this as congress violating law already passed.

The written opinion is clear and concise about the problem with the 1402 funds not being included in with the 1401 funds as mandatory. So people see that the Administration exceeded Constitutional authority and it is discretionary funding and must be approved by congress.

Then you have ass clown who see, or rather don't see, the administration giving insurance companies money he shouldn't to make ACA seem less expensive to the US, and they will say its the republicans who are doing the bidding of the insurance companies....

Why can't the government speak plainly? 
"The ACA was not written and passed to include paying off the insurance companies to hide the fact that the ACA will cost billions more and cause premiums to skyrocket, so the Gubment can't pay them off unless its included in the annual budget approved by Congress. And using any justification to explain why its "the right thing to do" is contrary to everything the Constitution states and you should depart for Cuba to get better healthcare."

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

House? What house? CNN said this was the Republicans. 
Obamacare lawsuit: Judge rules in favor of Republicans - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## BuckB (Jan 14, 2016)

New guy 101 said:


> Reading the article, the opinion and the comments of the people on that site simply amazes me how things get twisted turned, worded and viewed so askew of reality.
> 
> As the main article alludes that ACA is fine as written and says there is no restriction on 1402 payment (even says early payment) and says the congress simply Must appropriate it..the use of must being key to what I am saying here...they simply MUST appropriate it...as in can be viewed as a judicial mandate that the law is not being followed unless it is appropriated. So many see this as congress violating law already passed.
> 
> ...


Everything you need to know about obamacare is explained in less than a minute by one of its architects, Jonathan Gruber:






Since the bill was passed using strong-arm tactics and other stuff of questionable legality, I see no problem with stopping it using the same extra-legal means of necessary.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

BuckB said:


> Everything you need to know about obamacare is explained in less than a minute by one of its architects, Jonathan Gruber:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think maybe my point was misinterpreted. The opinion was clear that there exists no mandatory funding for the 1402...so there fore it is legal and law full to not fund it at congressional discretion.
Merely means that the article and the resulting comments shows that people did not read the opinion. And do not understand the ACA law (phew, haccc-phew), or the constitution. 
I support the position that not funding 1402 is lawful a and will more quickly bring to truth what the impacts of Obama care really are...financial catastrophe for our economy.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Smitty901 said:


> However, ruling is meaningless as it has been stayed pending appeal. And when it goes in front of an Obama friendly court it will be over turned. The Supreme court will be of no help to us.


I disagree, but obviously we will have to wait and see. As for the Supreme Court, it would end up a 4-4 push with the lower court ruling holding. I see this as an issue and case in which it is clearly about Constitutional separations of powers that would be a clear violation of law to rule that it is not.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

RedLion said:


> I disagree, but obviously we will have to wait and see. As for the Supreme Court, it would end up a 4-4 push with the lower court ruling holding. I see this as an issue and case in which it is clearly about Constitutional separations of powers that would be a clear violation of law to rule that it is not.


 When the Judge stayed the order. They knew it would be appealed . By getting the appeal in front of an Obama friendly court. It will be over turned. Then it goes to the supreme court. First it will take a long time, second if courts hears it 4 to 4 tie, ruling stands, if the don't hear it ruling stands. Either way it will have no effect on what they are doing.
Liberal Appeals courts do not give a dam about what is Constitutional.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Smitty901 said:


> When the Judge stayed the order. They knew it would be appealed . By getting the appeal in front of an Obama friendly court. It will be over turned. Then it goes to the supreme court. First it will take a long time, second if courts hears it 4 to 4 tie, ruling stands, if the don't hear it ruling stands. Either way it will have no effect on what they are doing.
> Liberal Appeals courts do not give a dam about what is Constitutional.


And you know that it will get in front of an Obama friendly or liberal court how? I do not know what circuit that it was ruled in or where the appeal would be? I do know that there are differences, politically speaking from circuit to circuit. You may end up being correct, but maybe not.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

It looks like 9th circuit and one that has a rep as being liberal. Not good. I may be overly optimistic, but will wait to see how things go.


----------

