The Republican-led House has filed its long-anticipated lawsuit against President Barack Obama for his unilateral changes to Obamacare implementation, nearly four months after it voted to endorse the litigation.
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) announced the filing on Friday, lambasting Obama for having “chosen to ignore the will of the American people and re-write federal law on his own.”
For the first time in American history, the House voted on July 30 to endorse a lawsuit against a sitting president. It left room to target various aspects of Obamacare implementation. The lawsuit targets Obama’s unilateral delay of the employer mandate and alleged illegal transfers of funds to insurance companies.
Republicans have had a tough time finding a lawyer to handle the litigation. Two top firms were hired by the House, and subsequently backed out. The GOP ended up hiring Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who has been critical of Obama’s use of executive power, to work on the case.
It is a difficult case for Republicans. A variety of legal scholars say that although the House may have a decent argument on the merits, legal precedent makes it tough for the chamber to achieve “standing,” which requires plaintiffs to prove that they suffered a concrete injury due to the defendant’s actions.
The White House dismissed the lawsuit as lacking “any sound legal basis.”
“Instead of passing legislation to help expand the middle class and grow the economy, Speaker Boehner and House Republicans are spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars pursuing a lawsuit that is without any sound legal basis,” White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said in a statement.
The lawsuit, the filing of which was announced one day after Obama unveiled a series of executive actions on immigration, will not address the president’s upcoming moves on deportations and immigration enforcement. Boehner’s office said it is also considering legal action on immigration, but added that that would require another House vote.
“If this president can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well,” the Speaker said in a statement. “The House has an obligation to stand up for the Constitution, and that is exactly why we are pursuing this course of action.”
This article was updated at 12:54 PM EST to include a response from the White House.
I’ll get the popcorn.
Hey! GOP
Just do a ClassLess Action suit.
Geez!
Boehner says he is acting illegally. I wonder if he remembers the many many Signing Statements that George Bush signed. Obama has signed some too, however the quantities don’t compare.
From http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm (this link goes directly to Gdubya’s list)
***When a United States President signs legislation enacted by Congress, he may issue a written statement commenting on his actions.
Signing statements are often merely ceremonial, praising or criticizing the law or lawmakers or remarking on the importance of the issue addressed by the law. Such signing statements are often called “rhetorical” signing statements.
*****However, other signing statements may challenge Congress’s authority to act or assert that that the president will not enforce the law as written. ******
This type of signing statement is often called a “constitutional” signing statement: a president will object to a provision of law by citing a provision of the Constitution, or by citing a Supreme Court ruling interpreting the Constitution, or by bare assertion (without citation to authority) that the law offends the Constitution or invades the power of the Executive. Or the president may announce that he will interpret the law to avoid constitutional difficulties that he perceives.
Please note that other presidential documents appearing on the White House website – especially presidential remarks delivered at bill signing ceremonies – are frequently misidentified as signing statements; even scholars occasionally make this mistake. This website presents a document as a signing statement only if the Daily or Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, publications issued by the Office of the Federal Register in the Government Printing Office, categorizes the document as a signing statement.***
The hatred and hypocrisy of theses Republicans will never cease to surprise me. They are truly despicable. I hope this blows up in their faces (never with their base, I’m sure).
The problem is that in today’s political atmosphere, anything that a Republican lawmaker or President do is automatically Constitutional. Anything that a Democratic lawmaker or President does is considered unConstitutional until such time as they can find a judge to state that it is unConstitutional.
Today’s Republican party doesn’t give a damn about precedent, the rule of law, or past actions taken under laws already written when it’s a Democrat who is taking the action. They automatically deem it illegal and do their best to make it such.
Another frivolous lawsuit clogging up our already overburdened legal system. And here I thought the Republicans were in favor of tort reform.