The Heritage Foundation on Friday pointed out that Obamacare contains a number of provisions that may have been rejected, had Democrats read the bill before passing it.

One particular part of the law pointed out in the paper, “Warning: Side Effects of Special Congressional Health Handout May Include Lawsuits,” is the section of the Orwellian-named Affordable Care Act that specifically reads:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law … the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff … shall be health plans that are … created under this Act … or … offered through an Exchange established under this Act....”

Under this provision, which you can see on page 65, members of Congress and their staff should lose their current employer-sponsored health insurance program.

Fortunately for these insiders, the Obama administration had a fix. In October his Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a final rule saying that members of Congress and their staff participating in the exchange could continue receiving their employer contribution. This is unlike what is faced by the millions of other Americans forced to purchase their insurance through an exchange.

Unfortunately for Obama, some of us didn’t feel so lucky. Some members of Congress still support the constitution and believe changes to laws should be made by Congress, not by presidential fiat. We believe all 20 of the unilateral changes and delays to Obamacare made by President Obama are unlawful. And we think that if members actually felt the pain of Obamacare, they would stop turning a deaf ear to their constituents.  They might even stop claiming that those who have reached out to their representatives for support are liars.

That is why in January I filed a lawsuit against OPM, challenging its ruling. The Heritage paper does an excellent job outlining many of the legal claims in my complaint. According to Heritage:

“Without question, OPM’s attempt to exempt Congress from the Obamacare statute cried out for legal challenge. In order to satisfy the Article III standing requirement, however, any challenge would likely have to come from Members of Congress who themselves object to having to deviate from express statutory language in order to provide health coverage for their families and themselves. Consistent with this approach, on January 3, 2014, Senator Ron Johnson (R–WI) and one of his staff members filed suit challenging the OPM rule.”

Heritage calls for action from those of us opposed to the lawless actions of the administration:

“The recent OPM final rule to provide subsidies to Members of Congress and their staff contradicts the plain language of both the FEHB Program statute and Obamacare. Representatives who object to having to deviate from the express statutory language in order to provide health coverage for their families and themselves, such as Senator Ron Johnson, should investigate this matter further, and Members of Congress and their staff can and should sue if and when they are injured by this unlawful scheme.”

During my lifetime, I have witnessed a worsening erosion of the delicate balance between our three branches of government. Our constitutional framework was designed to limit the power of the federal government by having each branch serve as a necessary check on the other two. I hope those who support the suit will stand with me in providing this necessary check on the unfettered Obama administration.