Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I thought we had it on good info that Trump was going to nominate his hair.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
A federal judge ruled Thursday against the administration in a challenge to a portion of the Affordable Care Act brought by the House of Representatives.
At issue is the "cost sharing" provision in the law that requires insurance companies offering health plans through the law to reduce out-of-pocket costs for policy holders who qualify. The government offsets the added costs to insurance companies by reimbursing them.
But lawyers for the House argued that Congress did not properly approve the money for those reimbursements.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, sided with the challengers but said that she would stay her ruling pending appeal.
"Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one," she wrote.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision.
Jonathan Turley, a lawyer for the House, said the ruling shows that the President's signature health care law "violated the Constitution in committing billions of dollars from the United States Treasury without the approval of Congress."
"Judge Collyer's opinion is a resounding victory not just for Congress but for our constitutional system as a whole," Turley said in a statement. "We remain a system based on the principle of the separation of powers and the guarantee that no branch or person can govern alone. It is the very touchstone of the American constitutional system and today that principle was reaffirmed in this historic decision."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday characterized Republicans' efforts as unprecedented, and predicted the administration would prevail.
"This suit represents the first time in our nation's history that Congress has been permitted to sue executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute," Earnest said during his daily briefing. "These are the kinds of political disputes that characterize a democracy. It's unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to re-fight a political fight they keep losing."
An announcement on appealing Thursday's decision would come from the Justice Department once the ruling is fully assessed, Earnest said.
Former House Speaker John Boehner, who led the effort on the suit, called the decision "a victory."
"Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law," he tweeted.
Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law.
— John Boehner (@SpeakerBoehner) May 12, 2016
"This case is far from over," said Timothy Jost, a supporter of the law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.
He said that last fall the judge was wrong to rule that the House had the standing to bring the case in the first place and that he expects the appeals court to reverse on that threshold issue.
"Ultimately, if her opinion holds, and it is unlikely that it would, it would mean that insurers will have to come up with a way of providing the cost sharing reductions, and that would probably mean increased premiums down the road," he said.
Keep in mind that the plantiff's attorney is Jonathan Turley: Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda", have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian".
Maybe my logic circuits are broken, but if Congress passed the ACA, then, by extension, Congress approved the commitment to the spending of that money. If you order a pizza, you don't get to get out of paying for it by claiming you didn't budget for it.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
A federal judge ruled Thursday against the administration in a challenge to a portion of the Affordable Care Act brought by the House of Representatives.
At issue is the "cost sharing" provision in the law that requires insurance companies offering health plans through the law to reduce out-of-pocket costs for policy holders who qualify. The government offsets the added costs to insurance companies by reimbursing them.
But lawyers for the House argued that Congress did not properly approve the money for those reimbursements.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, sided with the challengers but said that she would stay her ruling pending appeal.
"Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one," she wrote.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision.
Jonathan Turley, a lawyer for the House, said the ruling shows that the President's signature health care law "violated the Constitution in committing billions of dollars from the United States Treasury without the approval of Congress."
"Judge Collyer's opinion is a resounding victory not just for Congress but for our constitutional system as a whole," Turley said in a statement. "We remain a system based on the principle of the separation of powers and the guarantee that no branch or person can govern alone. It is the very touchstone of the American constitutional system and today that principle was reaffirmed in this historic decision."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday characterized Republicans' efforts as unprecedented, and predicted the administration would prevail.
"This suit represents the first time in our nation's history that Congress has been permitted to sue executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute," Earnest said during his daily briefing. "These are the kinds of political disputes that characterize a democracy. It's unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to re-fight a political fight they keep losing."
An announcement on appealing Thursday's decision would come from the Justice Department once the ruling is fully assessed, Earnest said.
Former House Speaker John Boehner, who led the effort on the suit, called the decision "a victory."
"Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law," he tweeted.
Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law.
— John Boehner (@SpeakerBoehner) May 12, 2016
"This case is far from over," said Timothy Jost, a supporter of the law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.
He said that last fall the judge was wrong to rule that the House had the standing to bring the case in the first place and that he expects the appeals court to reverse on that threshold issue.
"Ultimately, if her opinion holds, and it is unlikely that it would, it would mean that insurers will have to come up with a way of providing the cost sharing reductions, and that would probably mean increased premiums down the road," he said.
Keep in mind that the plantiff's attorney is Jonathan Turley: Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda", have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian".
Maybe my logic circuits are broken, but if Congress passed the ACA, then, by extension, Congress approved the commitment to the spending of that money. If you order a pizza, you don't get to get out of paying for it by claiming you didn't budget for it.
It's broke. Lemme fix it for ya...
Congress, in addition to passing statuatory laws, must appropriate the fundings as well. It's a two step process.
1) Here's a bunch of laws
2) Here's the fundings for the laws in #1
That's a general rule.
The exceptions are those legally mandated to be funded (ie, SS, MediCare, Essential Services...)
So, in section 4102 of PPACA that covers the risk mitigations to the insurers, Congress did NOT appropriate fundings.
d-usa wrote: *looks at current makeup of the SCOTUS, notices that Roberts is still Chief Justice*
Well, I don't expect much to come from this.
eh... when you get down to the actual function of Congress, the Courts tends to favor Congress than the Executive.
It's a case that doesn't really argues the merits/demerits of PPACA, but getting into the weeds of congressional appropriation via "the power of the purse".
See the case when the Executive Dept. wanted to label the Senate as adjourned so that Obama can seat his appointees. (NRLB v. ??).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 22:42:21
You are aware that congress passed the law, right? This isn't a case of legislative vs. executive, it's a case of the current legislative branch vs. the previous legislative branch that passed the law.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
A federal judge ruled Thursday against the administration in a challenge to a portion of the Affordable Care Act brought by the House of Representatives.
At issue is the "cost sharing" provision in the law that requires insurance companies offering health plans through the law to reduce out-of-pocket costs for policy holders who qualify. The government offsets the added costs to insurance companies by reimbursing them.
But lawyers for the House argued that Congress did not properly approve the money for those reimbursements.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, sided with the challengers but said that she would stay her ruling pending appeal.
"Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one," she wrote.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision.
Jonathan Turley, a lawyer for the House, said the ruling shows that the President's signature health care law "violated the Constitution in committing billions of dollars from the United States Treasury without the approval of Congress."
"Judge Collyer's opinion is a resounding victory not just for Congress but for our constitutional system as a whole," Turley said in a statement. "We remain a system based on the principle of the separation of powers and the guarantee that no branch or person can govern alone. It is the very touchstone of the American constitutional system and today that principle was reaffirmed in this historic decision."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday characterized Republicans' efforts as unprecedented, and predicted the administration would prevail.
"This suit represents the first time in our nation's history that Congress has been permitted to sue executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute," Earnest said during his daily briefing. "These are the kinds of political disputes that characterize a democracy. It's unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to re-fight a political fight they keep losing."
An announcement on appealing Thursday's decision would come from the Justice Department once the ruling is fully assessed, Earnest said.
Former House Speaker John Boehner, who led the effort on the suit, called the decision "a victory."
"Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law," he tweeted.
Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law.
— John Boehner (@SpeakerBoehner) May 12, 2016
"This case is far from over," said Timothy Jost, a supporter of the law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.
He said that last fall the judge was wrong to rule that the House had the standing to bring the case in the first place and that he expects the appeals court to reverse on that threshold issue.
"Ultimately, if her opinion holds, and it is unlikely that it would, it would mean that insurers will have to come up with a way of providing the cost sharing reductions, and that would probably mean increased premiums down the road," he said.
Keep in mind that the plantiff's attorney is Jonathan Turley: Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda", have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian".
Maybe my logic circuits are broken, but if Congress passed the ACA, then, by extension, Congress approved the commitment to the spending of that money. If you order a pizza, you don't get to get out of paying for it by claiming you didn't budget for it.
It's broke. Lemme fix it for ya...
Congress, in addition to passing statuatory laws, must appropriate the fundings as well. It's a two step process.
1) Here's a bunch of laws
2) Here's the fundings for the laws in #1
That's a general rule.
The exceptions are those legally mandated to be funded (ie, SS, MediCare, Essential Services...)
So, in section 4102 of PPACA that covers the risk mitigations to the insurers, Congress did NOT appropriate fundings.
There's no ambiguity here.
Again, Congress has ordered a pizza, and the bill has come due, and regardless of what Congress has budgeted for, services rendered have to be paid for. Shenanigans like this is why Congress's approval ratings are so pathetic. Change the law, but don't default on an obligation you made a promise for. If anything, perhaps Congress should be sued for failing to pay for what they ordered.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
A federal judge ruled Thursday against the administration in a challenge to a portion of the Affordable Care Act brought by the House of Representatives.
At issue is the "cost sharing" provision in the law that requires insurance companies offering health plans through the law to reduce out-of-pocket costs for policy holders who qualify. The government offsets the added costs to insurance companies by reimbursing them.
But lawyers for the House argued that Congress did not properly approve the money for those reimbursements.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, sided with the challengers but said that she would stay her ruling pending appeal.
"Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one," she wrote.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision.
Jonathan Turley, a lawyer for the House, said the ruling shows that the President's signature health care law "violated the Constitution in committing billions of dollars from the United States Treasury without the approval of Congress."
"Judge Collyer's opinion is a resounding victory not just for Congress but for our constitutional system as a whole," Turley said in a statement. "We remain a system based on the principle of the separation of powers and the guarantee that no branch or person can govern alone. It is the very touchstone of the American constitutional system and today that principle was reaffirmed in this historic decision."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday characterized Republicans' efforts as unprecedented, and predicted the administration would prevail.
"This suit represents the first time in our nation's history that Congress has been permitted to sue executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute," Earnest said during his daily briefing. "These are the kinds of political disputes that characterize a democracy. It's unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to re-fight a political fight they keep losing."
An announcement on appealing Thursday's decision would come from the Justice Department once the ruling is fully assessed, Earnest said.
Former House Speaker John Boehner, who led the effort on the suit, called the decision "a victory."
"Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law," he tweeted.
Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law.
— John Boehner (@SpeakerBoehner) May 12, 2016
"This case is far from over," said Timothy Jost, a supporter of the law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.
He said that last fall the judge was wrong to rule that the House had the standing to bring the case in the first place and that he expects the appeals court to reverse on that threshold issue.
"Ultimately, if her opinion holds, and it is unlikely that it would, it would mean that insurers will have to come up with a way of providing the cost sharing reductions, and that would probably mean increased premiums down the road," he said.
Keep in mind that the plantiff's attorney is Jonathan Turley: Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda", have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian".
Maybe my logic circuits are broken, but if Congress passed the ACA, then, by extension, Congress approved the commitment to the spending of that money. If you order a pizza, you don't get to get out of paying for it by claiming you didn't budget for it.
It's broke. Lemme fix it for ya...
Congress, in addition to passing statuatory laws, must appropriate the fundings as well. It's a two step process.
1) Here's a bunch of laws 2) Here's the fundings for the laws in #1
That's a general rule.
The exceptions are those legally mandated to be funded (ie, SS, MediCare, Essential Services...)
So, in section 4102 of PPACA that covers the risk mitigations to the insurers, Congress did NOT appropriate fundings.
There's no ambiguity here.
Again, Congress has ordered a pizza, and the bill has come due, and regardless of what Congress has budgeted for, services rendered have to be paid for. Shenanigans like this is why Congress's approval ratings are so pathetic. Change the law, but don't default on an obligation you made a promise for. If anything, perhaps Congress should be sued for failing to pay for what they ordered.
And that summary says exactly what we're telling you: congress DID approve the spending when they passed the law saying "we're going to spend $X on doing {thing we want to do}". The entire argument of the lawsuit is based on a technicality, that when congress said "we're going to spend this money" they didn't quite follow the exact procedure required. This would be a complete non-issue except for the fact that the party balance in congress has shifted since the law was passed and the new majority party is looking for an excuse to overturn the decisions of the previous majority party.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
And that summary says exactly what we're telling you: congress DID approve the spending when they passed the law saying "we're going to spend $X on doing {thing we want to do}". The entire argument of the lawsuit is based on a technicality, that when congress said "we're going to spend this money" they didn't quite follow the exact procedure required. This would be a complete non-issue except for the fact that the party balance in congress has shifted since the law was passed and the new majority party is looking for an excuse to overturn the decisions of the previous majority party.
Then you didn't read the whole thing:
Although she ruled that the government had no authority to pay out any money to insurance companies as cost-sharing reimbursements, she did conclude that Congress had in fact authorized that program to be created. What is lacking, she found, was separate authority to make the payments contemplated by that provision.
Ya know... the vaunted "Power of the Purse" thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 23:12:01
Although she ruled that the government had no authority to pay out any money to insurance companies as cost-sharing reimbursements, she did conclude that Congress had in fact authorized that program to be created. What is lacking, she found, was separate authority to make the payments contemplated by that provision.
Ya know... the vaunted "Power of the Purse" thing.
Which is, again, nitpicking a ridiculous technicality. It's like saying "you have permission to buy a pizza, but you don't have permission to spend the money to buy it". The intent of what congress did was obvious, and the only argument here is that the exact proper procedure wasn't quite followed. If we still had the same congress that originally passed the law it would be a quick 5-minute correction to fix the issue with no controversy at all. The only reason anyone is objecting to it is because they've seen an opportunity to overturn the law with no chance of congress fixing the problem.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
d-usa wrote: *looks at current makeup of the SCOTUS, notices that Roberts is still Chief Justice*
Well, I don't expect much to come from this.
eh... when you get down to the actual function of Congress, the Courts tends to favor Congress than the Executive.
It's a case that doesn't really argues the merits/demerits of PPACA, but getting into the weeds of congressional appropriation via "the power of the purse".
And when you look at the current SCOTUS, and look specifically at Chief Justice Roberts, and look at the reasoning behind his previous rulings, specifically on the PPACA, you have a pretty good idea of what the next ruling will be.
d-usa wrote: *looks at current makeup of the SCOTUS, notices that Roberts is still Chief Justice*
Well, I don't expect much to come from this.
eh... when you get down to the actual function of Congress, the Courts tends to favor Congress than the Executive.
It's a case that doesn't really argues the merits/demerits of PPACA, but getting into the weeds of congressional appropriation via "the power of the purse".
And when you look at the current SCOTUS, and look specifically at Chief Justice Roberts, and look at the reasoning behind his previous rulings, specifically on the PPACA, you have a pretty good idea of what the next ruling will be.
Oh.... come on. Let whembly have his dreams. It's a man has, in the end.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Here is how I see things happening with this court decision:
It's like when a parent gives their child their first debit card.
The Dad gives his teenage daughter a prepaid debit card. He had to be a co-signer for it as she had no credit rating. He tells her she has the authority to use it whenever she wants. The thing is that, as a prepaid card, there is no balance on it. The father never deposited any money into the account.
Sure, she can use the card whenever she wants, but if he hasn't authorized a deposit into the account there is nothing for her to spend. Every transaction will be denied.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/13 03:33:21
cuda1179 wrote: The Dad gives his teenage daughter a prepaid debit card. He had to be a co-signer for it as she had no credit rating. He tells her she has the authority to use it whenever she wants. The thing is that, as a prepaid card, there is no balance on it. The father never deposited any money into the account.
Which would be such an obviously stupid thing to do that anyone looking at the situation would say "nope, we must have the story wrong". If your interpretation of the law is "you can spend money to do this, but you can't spend any money" then your interpretation is obviously not reasonable. The ONLY reason anyone is taking that interpretation is that doing so overturns a law they dislike for political reasons. This isn't legitimate concern for the process of allocating and spending money, it's taking any opportunity, no matter how obscure or petty, to make an attack on the law.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Although she ruled that the government had no authority to pay out any money to insurance companies as cost-sharing reimbursements, she did conclude that Congress had in fact authorized that program to be created. What is lacking, she found, was separate authority to make the payments contemplated by that provision.
Ya know... the vaunted "Power of the Purse" thing.
Which is, again, nitpicking a ridiculous technicality. It's like saying "you have permission to buy a pizza, but you don't have permission to spend the money to buy it". The intent of what congress did was obvious, and the only argument here is that the exact proper procedure wasn't quite followed. If we still had the same congress that originally passed the law it would be a quick 5-minute correction to fix the issue with no controversy at all. The only reason anyone is objecting to it is because they've seen an opportunity to overturn the law with no chance of congress fixing the problem.
Incorrect.
The intent of what congress did were to NOT specifically fund aspect of the law.
It's not called "the power of the purse" for nothing.
d-usa wrote: *looks at current makeup of the SCOTUS, notices that Roberts is still Chief Justice*
Well, I don't expect much to come from this.
eh... when you get down to the actual function of Congress, the Courts tends to favor Congress than the Executive.
It's a case that doesn't really argues the merits/demerits of PPACA, but getting into the weeds of congressional appropriation via "the power of the purse".
And when you look at the current SCOTUS, and look specifically at Chief Justice Roberts, and look at the reasoning behind his previous rulings, specifically on the PPACA, you have a pretty good idea of what the next ruling will be.
I'm inclined to agree with you.
We've reached the Calvinball stage already.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/13 04:04:14
Gordon Shumway wrote: I'm pretty sure the GOP have been playing Calvinball ever since Reid taught them how to do it when he was the speaker. I miss Daschle.
The intent of what congress did were to NOT specifically fund aspect of the law.
It's not called "the power of the purse" for nothing.
Right. So, let me get this straight: the same congress that passed the law saying "we want to spend money to do {thing}" and sent it to the president for approval didn't want to fund their own law? If they didn't want to fund it then why did they pass a law saying "we're going to spend money"?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The intent of what congress did were to NOT specifically fund aspect of the law.
It's not called "the power of the purse" for nothing.
Right. So, let me get this straight: the same congress that passed the law saying "we want to spend money to do {thing}" and sent it to the president for approval didn't want to fund their own law? If they didn't want to fund it then why did they pass a law saying "we're going to spend money"?
One thing to remember if we are to consider the Power of the Purse argument, is that all spending bills have to originate in the House.
The PPACA, aka House Resolution 3590, did originate in the chamber of congress authorized to spend money. The bill that made changes to the ACA, House Resolution 4872 also originated in the correct chamber.
Which is why I am inclined to go with the opinion that Chief Justice Roberts would give this the same "guys, the intend was clear even if the language sucks" ruling as he did with previous challenges.
The intent of what congress did were to NOT specifically fund aspect of the law.
It's not called "the power of the purse" for nothing.
Right. So, let me get this straight: the same congress that passed the law saying "we want to spend money to do {thing}" and sent it to the president for approval didn't want to fund their own law? If they didn't want to fund it then why did they pass a law saying "we're going to spend money"?
Because the PPACA wasn't crafted really well?
Peregrine, this is a matter of law... not, "intent".
The problem is the law's vague language does not actually give the Department of HHS legal authority to fund the program... meaning Congress must get involved. This is appropriation 101 stuff...
According to a legal opinion released in 2014 by the Government Accountability Office, which said that in order for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid to use general funds for the risk corridors... Congress must adopt language spelling that out in CMS's future appropriations: http://www.gao.gov/products/B-325630
The provision that has been most widely noted so far requires the risk corridor program to be budget neutral for 2014. The risk corridor program moves funds from qualified health plans (QHPs) that have lower than anticipated allowable costs to those with higher than anticipated allowable costs. Section 1342 of the ACA, which creates the risk corridor program, contains no explicit appropriation.
The intent of what congress did were to NOT specifically fund aspect of the law.
It's not called "the power of the purse" for nothing.
Right. So, let me get this straight: the same congress that passed the law saying "we want to spend money to do {thing}" and sent it to the president for approval didn't want to fund their own law? If they didn't want to fund it then why did they pass a law saying "we're going to spend money"?
One thing to remember if we are to consider the Power of the Purse argument, is that all spending bills have to originate in the House.
The PPACA, aka House Resolution 3590, did originate in the chamber of congress authorized to spend money. The bill that made changes to the ACA, House Resolution 4872 also originated in the correct chamber.
Which is why I am inclined to go with the opinion that Chief Justice Roberts would give this the same "guys, the intend was clear even if the language sucks" ruling as he did with previous challenges.
Let's play a game:
1) Congress passes law to give every taxpayers $1,000 check by June 1st and Obama signs that legislation.
2) The law just states, "every tax payers gets a grand on 06/01/2016".
3) Stupidly, the congress-critters didn't appropriate the funding.
4) Do you believe the Executve Branch is empowered to direct the Treasury Department to disburse the check anyway? If so... why?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/13 05:03:30
d-usa wrote:
Which is why I am inclined to go with the opinion that Chief Justice Roberts would give this the same "guys, the intend was clear even if the language sucks" ruling as he did with previous challenges.
Let's play a game:
1) Congress passes law to give every taxpayers $1,000 check by June 1st and Obama signs that legislation.
2) The law just states, "every tax payers gets a grand on 06/01/2016".
3) Stupidly, the congress-critters didn't appropriate the funding.
4) Do you believe the Executve Branch is empowered to direct the Treasury Department to disburse the check anyway? If so... why?
Give me thousands and thousands of pages of theoretical transcripts, hours and hours of theoretical oral arguments made during the passage of that bill, months and months of public comments by the people working on that bill, and then I will give you a theoretical answer.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/13 05:11:16
d-usa wrote: Which is why I am inclined to go with the opinion that Chief Justice Roberts would give this the same "guys, the intend was clear even if the language sucks" ruling as he did with previous challenges.
Let's play a game:
1) Congress passes law to give every taxpayers $1,000 check by June 1st and Obama signs that legislation.
2) The law just states, "every tax payers gets a grand on 06/01/2016".
3) Stupidly, the congress-critters didn't appropriate the funding.
4) Do you believe the Executve Branch is empowered to direct the Treasury Department to disburse the check anyway? If so... why?
Give me thousands and thousands of pages of theoretical transcripts, hours and hours of theoretical oral arguments made during the passage of that bill, months and months of public comments by the people working on that bill, and then I will give you a theoretical answer.
So you don't want to engage... fine.
For the rest of the thread, I'll tell you the answer:
There's a distinction between an authorization bill and an appropriation bill. The authorization bill is simply something that was signed by the President and becomes law. Each year, an appropriation bill is then raised in Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives to specify how much of that money is actually going to be spent. The Senate Appropriations Committee raises a similar bill, both houses vote on their bills (with the Senate taking its lead from the House), then it's reconciled/sent to President for signature and then the money is disbursed. The next year, a new appropriation must be passed. The Appropriations Committees therefore have enormous power, as they can completely block spending that was authorized in previous years.
In other words, the Powah of the Purse™.
Some spending is mandatory... that is, the authorizing legislation contains language that appropriates the funds up front. Social Security, for example, is mandatory. Most such laws are discretionary, which is what allows Congress to control the budget, although mandatory spending does absolutely dominate the budget in terms of dollars spent.
None of the PPACA is part of the mandatory spending schedule.
In this case - HHS didn't have a direct legal means to disburse any fundings in the risk corridors because Congress, didn't specifically appropriate the funds.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/13 05:22:49
d-usa wrote:
Which is why I am inclined to go with the opinion that Chief Justice Roberts would give this the same "guys, the intend was clear even if the language sucks" ruling as he did with previous challenges.
Let's play a game:
1) Congress passes law to give every taxpayers $1,000 check by June 1st and Obama signs that legislation.
2) The law just states, "every tax payers gets a grand on 06/01/2016".
3) Stupidly, the congress-critters didn't appropriate the funding.
4) Do you believe the Executve Branch is empowered to direct the Treasury Department to disburse the check anyway? If so... why?
Give me thousands and thousands of pages of theoretical transcripts, hours and hours of theoretical oral arguments made during the passage of that bill, months and months of public comments by the people working on that bill, and then I will give you a theoretical answer.
So you don't want to engage... fine.
I did engage, you just didn't like the answer.
Me: Like previous rulings, Chief Justice Roberts will likely look at both the text of the law as well as the intend of the law, and then rule on the law.
You: How would you rule on this stupid law?
Me: I don't know, I can't figure out the intend of the law compared to the text of the law because your theoretical question doesn't have any theoretical supporting documentation to answer the question.
You: So you don't want to answer, fine.
d-usa wrote:
Which is why I am inclined to go with the opinion that Chief Justice Roberts would give this the same "guys, the intend was clear even if the language sucks" ruling as he did with previous challenges.
Let's play a game:
1) Congress passes law to give every taxpayers $1,000 check by June 1st and Obama signs that legislation.
2) The law just states, "every tax payers gets a grand on 06/01/2016".
3) Stupidly, the congress-critters didn't appropriate the funding.
4) Do you believe the Executve Branch is empowered to direct the Treasury Department to disburse the check anyway? If so... why?
Give me thousands and thousands of pages of theoretical transcripts, hours and hours of theoretical oral arguments made during the passage of that bill, months and months of public comments by the people working on that bill, and then I will give you a theoretical answer.
So you don't want to engage... fine.
I did engage, you just didn't like the answer.
Me: Like previous rulings, Chief Justice Roberts will likely look at both the text of the law as well as the intend of the law, and then rule on the law.
You: How would you rule on this stupid law?
Me: I don't know, I can't figure out the intend of the law compared to the text of the law because your theoretical question doesn't have any theoretical supporting documentation to answer the question.
You: So you don't want to answer, fine.
My question had nothing to do with the PPACA.
I was trying to get you to see the distinction between an authorization bill vs appropriation bill.
The law is often A) what are you going to do, and B) how do you pay for it.
CJ Roberts may very well take it in the direction you'd expect, however what's different here than the other Burwell cases is that it really isn't about the PPACA.
If SCOTUS rules that the intent of the PPACA was to legislate mandatory spending, then the program is fully funded. So SCOTUS can rule that A) the PPACA will fund this section and B) by mandatory appropriation.
Based on his history with the PPACA, and ruling on intent rather than plain text only, that is what I would expect.
Your theoretical law didn't have any theoretical intent, so there was no way to answer it.
