Good day all. Yesterday a federal judge issued a ruling in how Obamacare was being funded. The judge said that the Obama Regime was illegally spending funds not authorized by Congress.
This is the latest court challenge to the very unpopular Affordable Care Act. This one, rather than being filed by a group or an individual, was actually filed by the house of Representatives. It’s rather complicated. Here are some of the details from the Los Angeles Times:
House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially historic lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge declared the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.
Oh Boy! That’s a big Bozo No No for the President of any party. As anyone who has done even a cursory reading of the Constitution, (Which leaves out everyone in the Obama Regime), knows, the house of Representatives appropriates funds and raises taxes, and the Senate votes to approve or disapprove. Basically, we’re talking about Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Administrative and Judicial branches have no authority to spend money unless Congress approves of it first.
When then Speaker of the House Boehner took this case to court, many thought that the judge would rule that Congress has no standing. That didn’t happen.
Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of Representatives had legal standing to sue the president over how he was enforcing his signature healthcare law.
Right off the bat, I’m going to say I don’t have a clue on if this was a good or bad decision. Honestly, it should never have reached this point. The shear lawlessness of this administration, with the active aid of the Democrat Party will go down in history. Frankly, as soon as Obama started usurping powers as president he wasn’t entitled to, he should have been removed from office. In any case, yesterday, (May 12, 2016), Judge Collyer lowered the boom on Obama.
On Thursday, she ruled the administration is violating a provision of the law by paying promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced costs to low-income Americans.
But not to worry! She put her ruling on hold.
The judge’s ruling, while a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.
If it is, then the constitutional requirement that all spending must be approved by the Congress is dead, right along with the republic.
But the 38-page opinion highlights the repeated complaint from Republicans that Obama and his administration have ignored constitutional limits on their authority.
The Constitution says “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” Collyer noted, but the administration has continued to pay billions to insurers for their extra cost of providing health coverage.
“Paying [those] reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution,” she wrote. “Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.”
That is what the law and constitution says. However, Obama and the Democrats care nothing about the Constitution, otherwise Barack Obama would have been impeached, convicted and removed from office years ago. Of course, The Obama Director of Propaganda proceeded to propagandize on the ruling.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the administration remained confident it will prevail in the end.
“This suit represents the first time in our nation’s history that Congress has been permitted to sue the executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute,” he told reporters. “It’s unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to re-fight a political fight that they keep losing.”
Funny, I seem to recall that most of the cases of this nature have gone against the Obama regime? Granted, we have the blatantly erroneous Obamacare rulings from Chief Justice Roberts on the individual mandates and on the plain language of the law, but letting a president spend money he isn’t authorized to by congress? If they ignore that one, (and I have no doubt that at least 4 members of the court will), then we may as well close down congress and let Obama rule by decree.
The healthcare law says insurers who enroll eligible, low-income Americans shall cover the costs of their deductibles and co-payments, but promises the federal government “shall make periodic and timely payments” to cover those costs.
The law is not entirely clear on where this money will come from, however.
I know where it’s coming from. Take a look in the mirror. There is only one place where any money the government spends comes from, and that’s the taxpayers. This is why Congress has the power of the purse.
At first, the administration asked Congress for an appropriation to cover these costs.
Which is just how the system is meant to work.
But when that request went nowhere in Congress, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services said they could continue to pay these required reimbursements. They said payments were like “other appropriate entitlements like Medicaid” that are covered by permanent federal funds and not subject to an annual appropriation.
Excuse me? What permanent federal funds? There is no such thing. Congress is supposed to pass a budget each year, (Granted, they have been ignoring their duties for a while now), and if they decide that some project or program isn’t going to be funded, then there will be no funds appropriated for it. If a department spends funds on an unauthorized program, well, I believe that might be called “Embezzlement” or “Misuse of government funds.” I think both may be prosecutable, and at the very least should get whoever authorized the spending to be fired. But then this is the Obama Regime where the rule of law never outweighs the Rule of Obama.
Collyer, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said she would block “any further reimbursements…until a valid appropriation is in place,” but then put her order on hold while the administration appeals.
Two things here. First, the LA Times saying that the judge was a Bush appointee. Ok, I can go with that. I’ve done it myself and it is information. However, they should also name the party when it’s a Democrat ruling against the Republicans or conservative/Republican groups. Fair is fair after all.
Second, why the Hell did she stay the order? Is she so unsure that she won’t be overturned on appeal that she will allow this criminal activity to continue? If so, why did she even bother ruling in the first place?
The case of House of Representatives v. Burwell will move to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where Democratic appointees have a solid majority.
Well how about that? The Times did say the next court is a Democrat stronghold. Will wonders never cease? However, they are implying that this court will not judge the law or the constitution and will simply say to the Congress, “Tough luck. Obama can do whatever he wants.”
In the past, the Supreme Court has tossed out suits from senators who objected to how the administration was interpreting the law.
As I recall, those were from individual senators or representatives. This case is the entire congress as an institution is the plaintiff. Again, not being a lawyer, (For which I give thanks repeatedly), I can’t say how this will turn out. However, I will say again, it should not have gone this far. Obama should have been impeached. For that to have happened, we would have required a Republican Party with a spine and a Democrat Party with some ethics, morality and honesty. Yeah, that will never happen.
Thatisall
~The Angry Webmaster~
[yasr_visitor_votes size=”medium”]
