During a congressional committee hearing about the constitutional limits imposed on the presidency and the implications of President Barack Obama’s disregard for implementing the Affordable Care Act as written, one expert testified that the consequences of the president’s behavior were potentially grave. He said that the precedent set by Obama could eventually lead to an armed revolt against the federal government.
Expert Testifies to Congress that Obama’s ‘Ignoring Laws’ Could Lead to Overthrow of Government | MediaiteDecember 4, 2013
Co-bloggers Randy Barnett, Orin Kerr, and I will be speaking at an upcoming event at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC on our recently published book A Conspiracy Against Obamacare: The Volokh Conspiracy and the Health Care Case, which details ours and the VC’s role in developing the arguments in the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision (the book is also coauthored with Jonathan Adler, David Bernstein, and David Kopel). The book’s editor, Trevor Burrus of the Cato Institute, will also speak at the Heritage event.
The event will be held on December 10, from 12 to 1 PM. More information, including how to RSVP, here.
More than a year after the Supreme Court upheld the central provision of President Obama’s health care overhaul, a fresh wave of legal challenges to the law is playing out in courtrooms as conservative critics — joined by their Republican allies on Capitol Hill — make the case that Mr. Obama has overstepped his authority in applying it.
A federal judge in the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in one of several cases brought by states including Indiana and Oklahoma, along with business owners and individual consumers, who say that the law does not grant the Internal Revenue Service authority to provide tax credits or subsidies to people who buy insurance through the federal exchange.
As millions of Americans see their health-insurance premiums increase, have their coverage dropped as a result of the Affordable Care Act, and are unable to use the federal exchange, Oklahoma has sued the Obama administration. The Sooner State and several others are trying to stop the government from imposing tax penalties on certain states, businesses and individuals in defiance of the law. If these legal challenges are successful, the deficit spending associated with the new health-care law could be reduced by approximately $700 billion over the next decade.
The Supreme Court will hear a case arguing that private businesses should not be required to offer their employees health insurance that covers contraception, the court announced on Tuesday.
The case centers on a controversial measure of the Affordable Care Act that business owners say violates their right to religious freedom by forcing them to pay for a service they find objectionable.
It will be the first time that the high court will revisit the healthcare law since last June, when it upheld the constitutionality of the overall law and affirmed a requirement that individuals carry health insurance or pay a penalty.
The court will hear the case this term, most likely in the spring.
After meeting with several Obamacare Navigators who openly encouraged our undercover reporters to lie about income status, health history and more, it became clear that personal data was also being “cross-pollinated.”
Enter Enroll America, a Sebelius-linked group dedicated to signing people up for Obamacare and Chris Tarango, Texas Enroll America Communications Director who Project Veritas caught on tape agreeing to help obtain a private list of potential Obamacare enrollee data for election/political purposes. Tarango goes so far to say he’ll “Do whatever it f****** takes.”
The filing of the \”friend of the court\” brief by the forty House Republicans adds an element of constitutional legitimacy to Sissel\’s case. As the Washington Times reported on Sunday, the brief noted that \”given that an Origination Clause challenge against a taxing bill of this magnitude has never before been mounted, it is imperative that this Court not sanction the lower court’s superficial analysis of the Origination Clause.\”
The Pacific Legal Foundation\’s Beard told the Times, \”this support from members of the House is especially significant because PLF’s lawsuit defends the constitutional authority of the lower chamber, the legislative body that is closest to the people.\”
The brief contains new material from federal law and the legislative history of the PPACA. Read the whole thing here (pdf). Oral arguments in Halbig take place on December 3.
President\’s health care fix constitutional?
Moreover, this most recent exercise may create other problems. Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law who is involved in one of the lawsuits against Obamacare’s implementation, points out in an e-mail that “the president\’s action doesn\’t make these policies legal, it just says the feds won\’t enforce. State insurance commissioners may approve, but federal law still prohibits these policies.” Which makes me wonder: If those policies end up in court, will a judge go along with their creative approach? And if a judge doesn’t go along with it, what sort of chaos will envelop the insurance market?