The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
Trump and Obamacare
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Late last week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the secretaries of the treasury and health and human services to cease making payments to health care insurance companies in behalf of the more than 6 million Americans who qualify for these payments under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

Obamacare is the signature legislation of former President Barack Obama, enacted in 2010 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012. Its stated goal was to use the engine of the federal government to make health insurance available and affordable to everyone in America.

It seeks to achieve that goal by regulating the delivery of health care, giving federal bureaucrats access to everyone’s medical records, compelling everyone in America to acquire health insurance and providing financial subsidies for those people whose household incomes are below certain levels and who do not otherwise qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. Under President Obama, the subsidies were regularly paid, and they had been paid under President Trump, as well, until he decided to cease paying them last week.

Here is the back story.

How is it up to the president to decide whether to spend federal dollars when the law requires him to do so? The answer to that question depends on whether Congress has authorized the specific expenditure of the tax dollars.

Under the Constitution, when Congress passes legislation that directs the president to spend federal tax dollars — or, as is likelier the case today, dollars borrowed by the federal government — Congress must appropriate funds for the expenditure. So for every federal program that spends money, Congress must first create the program — for example, building a bridge or paving an interstate highway — and then it must pass a second bill that appropriates money from the federal treasury and makes it available to the president for the purpose stated in the first law.

When Obamacare was drafted in 2009 and 2010, one of the many compromises that went into it was the gradual rollout of its provisions; different parts of the law became effective at different times. The law was enacted with all Democratic votes. No Republican member of either house of Congress voted for it, and only a handful of Democrats voted against it.

By the time the subsidy provisions took effect, the Republicans were in control of Congress, yet Obama was still in the White House. When Obama asked Congress to appropriate the funds needed to make the subsidy payments required by the Obamacare statute, Congress declined to do so. Thus, Obama — who, as the president of the United States, was charged with enforcing all federal laws — was denied the means with which to enforce the subsidy portion of his favorite legislation.

ORDER IT NOW

So he spent the money anyway. He directed his secretaries of the treasury and health and human services to take appropriated funds from unstated programs and to make the subsidy payments to the seven largest health insurance carriers in the United States from those funds. Of course, by doing so, he was depriving other federal programs, authorized and funded by Congress, of the monies to which they were entitled. But Obamacare was his legacy, and he was not about to let it die on the vine.

Can the president spend federal dollars, whether from tax revenue or borrowing, without an express authorization from Congress, even if he is following a law that requires the expenditures? In a word, no.

That’s because the drafters of the Constitution feared the very situation confronted by Congress and Obama in 2013 — a law that is no longer popular, is no longer supported by Congress and costs money to enforce, with a president eager to enforce it and a Congress unwilling to authorize the payments. To address this tension between a president wanting to spend federal dollars and a Congress declining to authorize him to do so, the drafters of the Constitution put the power of the purse unambiguously in the hands of Congress. The Constitution could not be clearer: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

It follows that where the appropriations have not been made by Congress, the funds may not be spent by the president. When Obama declined to recognize this constitutional truism, the House of Representatives sued the secretary of health and human services in federal court, seeking to enjoin her from making the subsidy payments, and the House won the case. The court underscored the well-recognized dual scheme of the Framers whereby two laws are required for all federal expenditures — one to tell the president on whom or on what the money should be spent and the second to authorize the actual expenditure. Without the second law — the express authorization — there can be no lawful expenditure.

President Trump, after making the same unlawful expenditures for nine months, decided last week to cease the practice. Whether he did so to bend Congress to his will on health care or he did so out of fidelity to the Constitution, he did the right thing, but he should have done it on his first day in office.

Let’s not lose sight of the whole picture here. President Obama has triumphed over President Trump and the Republicans who control Congress, because all but a handful of those who are faithful to the Constitution are behaving as if there were a constitutional obligation on the part of the federal government to provide health insurance for everyone in America. According to a plain reading of the Constitution — and even as articulated by the Supreme Court in the case that upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare — there isn’t.

Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Obamacare 
Hide 5 CommentsLeave a Comment
5 Comments to "Trump and Obamacare"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Putting all this Constitutional stuff aside, the economic and practical impact of Obamacare was to put everyone on what is essentially a very expensive catastrophic care plan, with deductibles and out of pockets now reaching into thousands of dollars rather than the hundreds it used to be for those who had coverage. So it seems disingenuous to summarize the effect of the law as to make health-care insurance, much less the actual care, affordable for all.

    The longer Trump lets this circus roll on, the more entrenched it becomes in American life, to at some point start the rationing and outright denial of heath care to those who don’t have enough “qualies” to justify their care. So much for the right to life. As for liberty, that ship done sailed some time ago. As for happiness, or even property, do I really need to say anything?

    The Constitution is dead. They killed it years ago, and now they are killing the rights laid out in the Declaration as being endowed by our Creator, because they’ve essentially killed Him too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /anapolitano/trump-and-obamacare/#comment-2048663
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Big deal Judge. Is anyone from the Obama Administration going to prison over this? Will the insurance companies be forced to return the money? If not, who cares?
    I am reminded of my favorite law review article, 10 Harvard Law Review 457, The Path of the Law”, Holmes. Read page 461, bad men only learn by going to prison or paying money.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. KenH says:

    Whether he did so to bend Congress to his will on health care or he did so out of fidelity to the Constitution, he did the right thing, but he should have done it on his first day in office.

    Funny how the judge never said that Trump should have ended DACA on day one. According to a plain reading of the Constitution presidents cannot unilaterally shield illegal aliens from deportation and bestow legal permanent residency. Instead we were treated to all his contortions on why DACA recipients should be allowed to stay. He has a huge blind spot for illegal aliens.

    But on healthcare he’s a purist and relies on a “plain reading” of the Constitution which is on life support and arguableydead or will be as soon as Kamala Harris, Deval Patrick or Corey Booker gets sworn in in 2020 or 2024.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Ben Frank says:

    Obamacare was and is unconstitutional and irrational.

    Rolling up all the local problems into a giant national hairball, does not solve them.

    Remember the USSR. They had everything nationalized, and nothing worked. Honor the suffering of millions by not repeating the horrors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Obamacare was to put everyone on what is essentially a very expensive catastrophic care plan, with deductibles and out of pockets now reaching into thousands of dollars rather than the hundreds it used to be for those who had coverage.

    Totally agree, and Trump is quite right that no one should be forced to pay large amounts of money to for-profit health-care middlemen, nor should government.

    However there is a second half of what Trump ran on, which was a promise to replace Obamacare with a system that would have affordable premiums, reasonable deductibles, and would put a stop to profiteering by drug companies.

    I don’t quite see how blocking the subsidies alone would improve the affordability of health care in the United States.

    This article shows why it is not usually a good idea to have political issues resolved by judges, because the ability to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin does does not always lead to pragmatic solutions that benefit most people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?