PolitiFact.com Confirms Virginia AG Cuccinelli's EPA Claim

On January 17, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli was speaking at a political rally about a number of the EPA's job killing regulations.

In that speech, Ken said:

"[Tailpipe emissions rules], if fully implemented with all the regulations that go with it, they will keep the temperature from rising nearly five one-hundredths of a degree Fahrenheit by 2050."

Since his speech, the regional and national media has taken issue with AG Cuccinelli's statement and claimed that it is false, as the press has done with many of his other statements regarding the environment and EPA. 

Thankfully, PolitiFact.com, a non-partisan fact-check organization started by the St. Petersburg Times to help find the truth in American politics, completed a review of AG Cuccinelli's statement and confirmed its validity.

PolitiFact said:

"The EPA said the reductions would be between 0.011 degrees Fahrenheit and 0.027 degrees Fahrenheit and would occur by 2100. The agency's claim is even more modest than Cuccinelli suggested."

What's the big deal with this?

According to PolitiFact: "The agency says these new rules would add about $950 to the price of each new car but that the higher price would be offset by lower fuel costs over three to five years."

Let's recap:

The EPA wants to impose $950 per car in regulatory costs - to affect a change of, at most, .027 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100.

Click here to see the entire PolitiFact article.

AG Cuccinelli's Speech at Heritage Foundation

Thanks to Nathaniel Ward and the gang at Heritage for uploading the Cuccinelli speech at the Heritage President's Club meeting earlier this month. Definitely worth the time to watch!!!!

AG Cuccinelli's Speech at the 2010 Divine Mercy Care Gala

Ken Cuccinelli's speech at the 2010 Divine Mercy Care Gala from Divine Mercy Care on Vimeo.

Va. AG Cuccinelli Speaks Following ObamaCare Ruling

Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli speaks following today's ruling on ObamaCare.

Judge Hudson's Ruling on the Virginia Health Care Lawsuit

Click here to read Judge Hudson's ruling on the Virginia health care lawsuit

BREAKING NEWS: Judge Rules Individual Mandate Unconstitutional

A victory for liberty!!!!   More to follow throughout the day...

Ruling In Virginia Health Care Lawsuit Coming Midday Monday

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s office has alerted the media that the district court decision in the lawsuit Virginia has brought over Obamacare will be handed down midday on Monday. This will be the first major decision at this level in any case brought by a state against the health care law.

Gingrich, Cuccinelli Highlight Heritage Foundation President's Club meetings

The RC Blog spent the last two days at The Heritage Foundation's President's Club meetings in Washington, D.C. and was (as we always are...) overly impressed with the work of Heritage's staff.  President Dr. Ed Feulner announced to the 1,200+ record crowd that Heritage membership has now grown to over 700,000.  There were a number of panel sessions during the afternoon, including the impact of ObamaCare and where the Conservative party goes next after the 2010 elections. 

In the evening, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich gave the keynote address at the dinner.  Gingrich continues to show why he is one of the party's most strategic thinkers.  Truly a man of genius and intellect!!

The highlight of Day Two was the morning speech by Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli.  The RC Blog has attended more than 15 Heritage President's Club meetings over the years and has never seen the membership audience respond to a non-keynote speech as they did this morning for Cuccinelli.   He has captured the attention of leading Conservatives nationwide with his message of liberty.

I will post the videos of the President's Club speeches once Heritage posts them.

Virginian-Pilot: Meet Ken Cuccinelli - Virginia's Rising Star of the Right

Nice piece on Va. AG Ken Cuccinelli in Sunday's Virginian-Pilot newspaper out of Hampton Roads...

By Julian Walker
The Virginian-Pilot
October 24, 2010

Conservative Wall Street Journal columnist Stephen Moore was delivering a luncheon address to a group of like-minded New Jersey voters in August when something unexpected happened.  Moore asked audience members to name their preferred presidential candidate in 2012. Several offered Ken Cuccinelli's name.

"I was surprised, not because I don't think a lot of Ken," he said. "I was surprised people knew Ken."

The fact that Garden State voters know Cuccinelli well enough to mention him in presidential speculation illustrates the rapid ascent of Virginia's hard-charging attorney general.

In less than a decade, he's gone from an insurgent Republican candidate for state Senate to winning statewide office in a landslide.

And in a bit of fortuitous timing, Cuccinelli, 42, now finds his limited-government, anti-tax message resonating with swaths of an electorate anxious about the fate of the nation and their own livelihoods amid an unstable economy.

It helps that his rhetoric manifests itself in activism - he's sued to challenge the federal health care overhaul and to investigate a climate-change scientist, and he's issued legal opinions targeting immigration, abortion and gay rights.

He promised during last year's campaign to "fight with Washington," and he's delivering. To Hampton Roads Tea Party founder Karen Miner Hurd, Cuccinelli is refreshing precisely because he isn't a typical politician and his brand of no-nonsense pragmatism doesn't neatly "fit into the paradigm of conservatives."

Hurd first met Cuccinelli at a political event when he was running for attorney general and was impressed by his "genuine" demeanor and his fondness for the tea party movement.

Apparently, the feeling is mutual.

Cuccinelli was the darling of the recent statewide tea party convention, drawing a sustained standing ovation.

It's that likability, coupled with his policy ideas, that makes opponents on the left so leery of Cuccinelli.

Although foes have derisively questioned Cuccinelli's sanity, dubbing him "Kookinelli," Democratic blogger Vivian Paige is convinced that dismissing him is folly.

"The man is smart, no doubt about it," she said, praising his razor-sharp recall of a meeting between the two, and his disarming public comportment.

"That's what makes him so dangerous," Paige added. "People think he's crazy, but he's not."

A New Jersey native raised Roman Catholic, Cuccinelli has called Northern Virginia home since he was a child.

He still lives there with his wife, Teiro, and seven children. After the 2009 election, the family moved from Fairfax County to Prince William County rather than Richmond, where his job is based, so their eldest daughter wouldn't have to leave her Catholic school. His younger children are home-schooled.

An engineering graduate and lawyer specializing in business and intellectual property, he launched his political career in Fairfax in 2002 with a state Senate primary challenge against Mike Thompson.

His conservative principles helped sway former state Del. Dick Black to support him.

"He seemed to be a person whose life was in order," Black said, recalling one of his first meetings with Cuccinelli. Black added that he also was moved by Cuccinelli's "very strong" moral and ethical values, including his opposition to abortion and to a tax referendum on the ballot at the time.

With the aid of Black's political operation and others in the pro-life, pro-gun, home school movement, Cuccinelli won.

Coalition-building has long been a Cuccinelli strength, according to his former legislative aide, Eve Marie Barner Gleason, because he will "never overlook a voting bloc."

An example of that came last year when Cuccinelli attended a forum hosted by the NAACP in Richmond and spoke to an audience not filled with GOP sympathizers. He won points with the crowd when the moderator told them he was the first candidate to accept an invitation to the forum, an event his Democratic opponent didn't attend.

"What Ken has always done that's been very effective in all his races is, when he can't put together 50 percent of the vote for him, he's very good about putting together a coalition of 50 percent against his opponents," observed blogger Ben Tribbett, a frequent critic of Cuccinelli.

That strategy has kept him in office and helped him survive a tight 2007 re-election campaign for state Senate that he won by about 100 votes. And it's what has his supporters believing Cuccinelli is destined for higher office.

"Ken Cuccinelli... is on the front lines, and people know if this guy is in the White House, he'd be undoing the Obama agenda so fast, people's head would spin," gushed Rick Shaftan, a political consultant who has worked on past Cuccinelli races.

A conundrum with Cuccinelli is how to evaluate a man who seems so comfortable bucking the establishment. Is he pursuing his culture war clashes out of principle or in quest of personal gain? And what effect is he having on Virginia?

At a minimum, he brings increased attention to the state, though opinions differ on whether it's positive.

Though a spokesman, Cuccinelli declined to be interviewed, but he did respond to e-mailed questions.

He noted that he'd been upfront with voters about his intention to oppose certain federal initiatives such as health care.

"Unfortunately," he wrote, "we have a federal government that is giving us more opportunities than I would appreciate having."

His response to questions about his actions has been consistent: He cites a duty "to defend the law and the U.S. and Virginia constitutions."

That philosophy is never more evident than when he discusses the health care lawsuit.

It is "the most important thing I will do as attorney general," he said, characterizing it as a fight for personal liberty against an overreaching government trying to force people to buy health insurance.

That case has helped endear Cuccinelli to people attracted to the tea party message of scaling back government.

In him they see a champion unafraid to articulate their views from a bully pulpit and rail against a Democratic president and Congress they believe have spent recklessly on bailouts and stimulus packages without fixing the economy.

Less charmed is Steve Shannon, the attorney and former state delegate Cuccinelli trounced in last year's election. He views Cuccinelli as a calculating politician who invokes the law to obscure his unorthodox views.

As proof, he points to Cuccinelli's decision not to support a lawsuit brought by the father of a Marine killed in Iraq against an anti-gay pastor who organizes pickets of military funerals.

Shannon argues that the attorney general was backing up a "raging homophobe," not protecting free-speech rights as he claimed, and points to Cuccinelli's statement last year that homosexual acts are "intrinsically wrong."

Staying out of the lawsuit placed Cuccinelli in the minority among state attorneys general - 48 others backed it. (The other who didn't support the suit was Maine Democrat Janet Mills.) And it drew outrage from some conservatives who wanted Cuccinelli to defend fallen military members.

Through a spokesman, Cuccinelli called the protests "absolutely vile and despicable." But he said Virginia already has a law that balances free speech rights while stopping the disruption of funerals.

That's vintage Cuccinelli. He holds firm to his belief in a strict reading of the law - in that case, the First Amendment - regardless of scorn or dissent.

Another issue that's drawn strong reaction is a fraud investigation targeting the research of a climate change scientist formerly at the University of Virginia.

Though Cuccinelli, who is a skeptic on global warming, may have enhanced his stature with conservatives in the process, one critic worries his actions could hurt the state.

Going after the university for research records hurts Virginia's ability to recruit great scientists, said Terry McAuliffe, a onetime and perhaps future Democratic candidate for governor.

"People in the scientific community are aware of what's going on here," he added. "You just don't go out and sue scientists.... That doesn't do anything to create jobs."

Cuccinelli rejects the "maverick" label, but it's clear his agenda isn't always in lockstep with Gov. Bob McDonnell or the governor's heir apparent, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, both fellow Republicans.

That was evident weeks after taking office, when Cuccinelli gave legal advice to colleges and universities that they lack the authority to include sexual orientation in non-discrimination policies.

Cuccinelli defends that guidance as a reminder to those schools "that their powers are limited" by the state constitution and code and "no matter how well-intentioned their efforts, they may not exceed those limits."

His position didn't differ dramatically from McDonnell's stance on the issue when he was Virginia's attorney general. But the controversy over Cuccinelli's advice mushroomed enough that the governor produced an executive directive - an edict lacking the force of law - protecting sexual orientation, to quell the controversy.

There, too, lies some of Cuccinelli's appeal: Through a combination of circumstance and choice, he has emerged as a formidable outsider, even among Republicans, in a moment of anti-establishment fervor.

McDonnell, for his part, says the two work together well and Cuccinelli's office provides good legal service to the state.

As far as the cases Cuccinelli has taken on, McDonnell said, "He's got now a Congress and an administration that has clearly governed to the left of center, and has passed new laws and enacted new policies that many of us here in Virginia have great concerns about whether they're, one, good policies, and number two, whether they are proper for the federal government to be involved in. I didn't really have that as much when I was attorney general with a Republican administration.... I think he's just doing his job to represent the interests of the state."

Already there are hints Cuccinelli has set his sights on an office beyond the one he occupies.

He publicly maintains his plan is to seek re-election in 2013, but he hasn't ruled out running for another post. There is a governor's race that same year, and U.S. Senate races loom for Democrats Jim Webb in 2012 and Mark Warner in 2014.

Political tongues wagged when Cuccinelli agreed to stump for a GOP candidate in Iowa - home to the first nominating contest in presidential election cycles.

And his use of the health care lawsuit in a fundraising appeal to supporters, as well as the recent announcement that he's assembled a network of campaign volunteers across the state, only fueled the speculation.

He is a tireless campaigner who puts in face time at GOP events, and communicates with the faithful through dispatches of his long-running Cuccinelli Compass, an e-mail newsletter he pens personally, sometimes in the wee hours.

"I'm a target, so I've got to act like one," Cuccinelli told The Washington Post. "Which just means work hard. Don't wait for the election."

"He's going places. He's either going to be president or on the Supreme Court in 10 years. One or the other," predicted Shaftan, the political consultant. "I think the left is very afraid of him, as they should be."

Julian Walker, (804) 697-1564, julian.walker@pilotonline.com

Virginia AG Cuccinelli Keeps Up the Heat on Global Warming Fraud

Today, Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli continued his assault against Dr. Michael Mann and the Global Warming establishment. AG Cuccinelli filed a new, more specific demand for documents related to a Mann grant project when he was at the University of Virginia.

If Dr. Mann and his disciples have nothing to hide, why are they so outraged by today's announcement? If it was me and I had nothing to hide, I would take the pro-active approach and provide all the documentation requested by the subpoena to the press in an event aimed at embarrassing my opponent.

Here is today's article from the Associated Press:

RICHMOND — Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has submitted a new, scaled-down demand for documents related to a former University of Virginia climate-change researcher's work.

Cuccinelli, a global-warning skeptic, is investigating whether Michael Mann defrauded state taxpayers by using manipulated data to obtain government grants. A judge ruled in late August that the attorney general was not specific enough about the nature of Mann's alleged wrongdoing, and that he lacks authority to investigate federal grants.

The attorney general is appealing that ruling to the Virginia Supreme Court.

The new civil subpoena pertains to just one state grant and does not include four federal grants that were part of Cuccinelli's original demand. Cuccinelli also included more specific language in the new subpoena.

Cuccinelli sent the revised demand to the university's attorney last week with an Oct. 29 deadline for responding. University officials, who went to court to fight Cuccinelli's original investigative demands, did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

U.Va. has argued that Cuccinelli's actions could impair academic freedom and discourage scientific research. University officials and others also have said the investigation was an attempt to take aim at Mann's conclusions rather than to uncover fraud. More than 800 college faculty members in Virginia signed a letter protesting the investigation.

"I find it extremely disturbing that Mr. Cuccinelli seeks to continue to abuse his power as the attorney general of Virginia in this way, pursuing an ongoing smear campaign against the University of Virginia, me and other climate scientists,'' Mann, who now works at Pennsylvania State University, wrote in an e-mail Monday. He called the probe "a partisan witch hunt.'"

Cuccinelli has denied that he is targeting Mann's conclusions. His office had no immediate comment Monday on the new subpoena.

Mann is one of several climate-change scientists whose work drew international attention earlier this year after hundreds of e-mails from a British climate research center were leaked. Climate-change skeptics seized on the e-mails and suggested climate scientists were systematically exaggerating the threat of climate change.

Cuccinelli is seeking e-mails exchanged between Mann and more than three dozen other scientists. His news subpoena also cites research papers written by Mann that the attorney general claims "contained false information, unsubstantiated claims and/or were otherwise misleading.''

Mann said the papers attacked by Cuccinelli were not cited in the proposal for the $214,700 state grant, which he said pertained to "natural land-vegetation-atmosphere interaction in the African savanna'' and had nothing to do with climate change.

Virginia Able to Regulate Abortion Centers

In an opinion released late last week, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli states that the Commonwealth of Virginia can regulate abortion centers absent legislation by the General Assembly. This means that these centers can be regulated through the state’s normal regulatory process.

The opinion was sought by state Senator Ralph Smith (R-22, Roanoke) and Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13, Manassas).

Providing safety standards for Virginia’s abortion centers has been a legislative priority for The Family Foundation for many years. Until the mid 1980s centers were regulated but that ended due to constitutional concerns. Since that time, abortion centers have been seen by the state as doctor’s offices, which require no emergency equipment for resuscitation or hemorrhage. The Family Foundation has worked to improve safety standards in abortion centers to those required for ambulatory (outpatient) surgery centers. After all, abortion is an invasive, surgical procedure.

Of course, the abortion industry in Virginia, Planned Parenthood and NARAL, have fought with all their might against safety standards for their centers. They argue that the procedure is safe, despite the fact that the state doesn’t have any reporting requirements for complications to abortion (also fought against by the abortion industry) so there is no way to really know. They also argue that abortion centers shouldn’t be “singled out” for regulation. What they don’t say is that other outpatient surgery businesses are self-regulated through respected, national accreditation organizations that require significant safety measures for their seal of approval. No such respected accreditation group exists for abortion.

The Attorney General’s opinion gives Governor McDonnell’s administration the opportunity to create necessary regulations for abortion centers without approval from the General Assembly. Since state agencies such as the Board of Health already have the power to regulate medical facilities this is not a new policy or a policy change that should require legislation. Previous governors simply have not acted on this ability.

(Source:  Family Foundation)

Cuccinelli on Greta Explaining Judge's Decision on Heathcare Lawsuit

Last night, Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli appeared on Fox New's "On the Record with Greta" to explain the decision against the Federal Government's attempt to dismiss Virginia's lawsuit against ObamaCare.  Current score:  Cuccinelli 1, Obama 0 after the first inning.  Big first step, but a long way to go....

Virginia Wins First Step In Obamacare Lawsuit!

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli made the following announcement minutes ago:

In a decision released this morning, Virginia survived the federal government's motion to dismiss. This is the first of many hurdles we will be facing - but this is a huge victory nonetheless.

As you all know - how this case turns out will have huge ramifications for the cause of liberty and even Federalism itself. While we are still reviewing the 32-page ruling, I would still like to point your attention to one of the concluding paragraphs in the judge's ruling:

While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate- and tax- a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit of appeals has squarely addressed this issue. No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce. Given the presence of some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side's position, this court cannot conclude at this stage that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

The secretary's motion to dismiss will therefore be denied. Resolution of the controlling issues in this case must await a hearing on the merits.

A copy of the entire decision can be downloaded by clicking here.

AG Cuccinelli Featured In This Sunday's Washington Post Magazine

Just learned that this Sunday's Washington Post Magazine will feature an in-depth look at Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. 

This article is a result of months of in depth research - it's an extensive look at Cuccinelli, his family, and what has made him a national leader in the fight for liberty and protecting the Constitution. The on-line version is now available and worth a read. 

As long-time RC Blog readers already know, we have strongly supported Cuccinelli and worked on all of his campaigns dating back to his first Virginia State Senate race in 2002.  Considering the years of ultra-negative articles, editorials, and letters printed in the Post over the years, this feature article is rather tame and should leave the average Post reader with a better impression of Cuccinelli (hopefully...).

Virginia Argues Against ObamaCare In Federal Court Today

Virginia's argued today in federal court on its lawsuit against the federal govenment on the issue of liberty and the government's ability to force Virginians to purchase health care.  A decision on the federal government's dismissal request is expected to be made in approximately 30 days.  Here is the video of AG Cuccinelli's press conference following the oral arguments (thanks to the Family Foundation).

AG Cuccinelli Headlines Tea Party Tonight In Manassas, Va.

Dear Virginia Patriots!

Now is the time to join your fellow patriots and stand up for our freedom and say "NO" to BIG GOVERNMENT.

OUR LIBERTY is what makes this country so great!

Bring your Family, Friends, and Flags to Harris Pavilion in downtown Manassas, Va. tonight (June 25) from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. This is the 22nd anniversary of Virginia's ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America. Bring your entire family for a night of festivities with music, friends, and fun and to show your support for our Attorney General and the Constitution!

Scheduled speakers include:
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli
Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall
Dr. John Bruchalski - director of Tepeyac Family Center
Jamie Radtke, President of Richmond Tea Party and Chairman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriots
Sonnie Johnson, President of the Virginia Chapter of the Frederic Douglas Foundation
Marc Aveni - Manassas City Councilman
Jackson Miller - Va. State Delegate

Each speaker will address some aspect of the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the federal healthcare mandate, the lawsuit, the impact of "Obamacare" on the medical community and its patients and the Tea Party movement's vital role in our upcoming November elections.

PARKING: There is lots of parking all around the Old Town. There are the Manassas train depot parking lots, the Old Town parking garage, overflow lots down the street, the BB&T parking lot across the street and street parking back in the residential side of Old Town. All parking is free.

REFRESHMENTS: Chick-fil-A sandwiches, chips, soft drinks and bottled water will be available for sale (Sandwich with chips - $4, drinks - $1). Part of the proceeds will go to benefit Manassas Tea Party.

MUSIC: A DJ wil be spinning disks from 6 pm to 7 pm. We'll be treated to classic rock from the 50s, 60s and 70s, country music, big band, and patriotic standards.

FOR THE KIDS: Manassas Volunteer Fire Department will be on hand with a fire engine for the kids to get their hands on. Also, General George Washington will be on hand in full military regalia to meet the attendees and lead us all in the invocation.

RAFFLE: We will be raffling off two books Friday night. One is Sean Hannity's latest and is signed by Sean. The other is the book on Lincoln's Gettysburg Address by Jack Levin and it is signed by his son, constitutional scholar and radio powerhouse Mark Levin. Tickets are $1 or free with a Manassas Tea Party registration (which requires a $10 annual dues fee).

OTHER STUFF: Manassas Tea Party will be selling their "Freedom is Brewing" Tea-Shirts for $15 apiece and taking pre-orders for the "Freedom is Brewing" bumper stickers at $3 apiece. Other vendors will be on hand selling American flags, Gadsden flags and Don't Tread on Me car flags. Organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, Defundit.org, NoVa Patriots Academy, Campaign for Liberty and numerous others will have booths as well.

COME HAVE A BLAST WITH YOUR FELLOW PATRIOTS!

Join Virginia AG Cuccinelli for Informational Webcast on June 16

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed a lawsuit on behalf of Virginia to overturn the federal health care mandate following the passage of the national health care bill in March. After weeks of waiting for the federal government to respond, federal officials filed a reply in the U.S. District Court on May 24 with a motion to dismiss the suit, which is what the Attorney General's office expected would happen. Cuccinelli's office responded, and is now waiting on the U.S. to file its reply brief by June 22, and then the oral arguments on the motion to dismiss will take place on July 1 at 10 a.m. - one hour for each side.

If Virginia's case is not dismissed and moves forward, a summary judgment hearing is scheduled for October 18.

On June 16, Attorney General Cuccinelli will hold a webcast to discuss where his team is on the case, what you can expect going forward and the constitutional issues involved. To join the webcast, you must register on the AG's website. The webcast is free and open to the public, but is not paid for at taxpayer expense.

Remember to register and click here for more details on the June 16 webcast!

Update on Virginia's Healthcare Lawsuit

Earlier this week, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli provided the following update on the Commonwealth's legal challenge to President Obama's healthcare reform:

I am writing you tonight to make sure you know of an important development in Virginia's case against the federal healthcare law. Today, Virginia filed its brief in opposition to the federal government's attempt to dismiss Virginia's lawsuit against the new federal healthcare law.

While it's over two months since we first filed this suit - in legal terms, this case is moving at a lightning pace!

As I wrote all of you last week - the U.S. responded to our lawsuit with a motion to dismiss the case - which we fully expected.

What I didn't share with you was the in-depth legal reasoning behind their claims - and our opposition to their motion to dismiss. Below is a simple but thorough chart which explains our arguments in the case.  I would encourage all of you to take a look - and let me know your thoughts!

The U.S. has to file its reply brief by June 22, and then the oral arguments on the motion to dismiss will take place on July 1 at 10 a.m. - one hour for each side.

If Virginia's case is not dismissed and moves forward, a summary judgment hearing is scheduled for October 18.

The information below is a good preview; however, I hope all of you will sign up to attend our exciting webcast being held on June 16th - next Wednesday - to discuss the case and its foundation. Please sign up by clicking here today!

This case is fascinating, and I would encourage each of you to read our brief, as it is a spectacular mix of Constitutional law, American history and relevant commentary on the process the healthcare bill went through on its way to becoming law. To see a copy of Virginia's brief click here, but the first line gets right to a counter to the US's sickly view of federalism: "In the view of Secretary Sebelius, federalism is so withered and near death that States lack the power and right to go to federal court to test the validity of their own enactments when they conflict with federal law."

It's worth the time to read it, and you'll be better prepared to advocate on behalf of the first principles we're defending. And, by the way, that's also why we'd like you to join us for the webcast on the healthcare law and lawsuit - so you'll better understand why we are doing what we're doing, and you'll be able to educate others on our precious first principles. So, please sign up today! It requires pre-registration.

I hope you like the chart, I happen to think it's a pretty cool way to lay the whole case out at this stage.

Federal Government's Claim:  Virginia is not injured by the federal health care law.
Virginia's Response: 
Because the federal health care law purports to invalidate a Virginia law (the Health Care Freedom Act) under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Virginia's sovereign interests have been injured.

Federal Government's Claim:  Because the mandate doesn't take effect until 2014, the case is not "ripe".
Virginia's Response: 
1) Based on several previous Supreme Court decisions, if a dispute is certain to occur in the future, this does not prohibit the suit from being brought in the present.
2) Virginia has already been forced to make decisions regarding insurance exchanges under the act, as well as changes to Medicaid. One of those decisions made the commonwealth forego more than $100 million in federal money.

Federal Government's Claim:  Virginia's suit is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.
Virginia's Response:  The act does not apply to states under these circumstances, because Virginia's action falls within an exception to the act that has been recognized by the Supreme Court.

Federal Government's Claim:  The government has the power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to mandate the purchase of individual health insurance.
Virginia's Response: 
1) The federal government's argument is contrary to the text of the Constitution.
2) The federal government's argument is contrary to the meaning of the words of the Commerce Clause as understood by the Founders.
3) The federal government's argument is contrary to the historical context of the nation's founding. When Great Britain instituted a tax on tea, the colonists' response was to boycott and to not buy tea. Parliament had the power to regulate commerce, but even it did not attempt to force colonists to buy the taxed product.
4) The federal government's argument is contrary to the traditional uses of the Commerce Clause. The clause has always been used to regulate economic activity; never inactivity.
5) The federal government's argument is contrary to the precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has set outer limits to the reaches of the Commerce Clause, including in cases such as Lopez and Morrison, saying that the clause must have principled limits, otherwise the federal government essentially would have unlimited power, rather than the limited powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Federal Government's Claim:  Even if refusing to buy insurance is not commerce, the government can still force people to buy health insurance using the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause.
Virginia's Response: 
1) Since 1819, the Supreme Court has held that any use of the Necessary and Proper Clause must be consistent with both "the letter and spirit" of the Constitution. Any interpretation that would destroy the federal form of government (where federal power is limited only to those powers enumerated in the Constitution, with remaining powers reserved to the states and the people) is not allowed under that standard.
2) In May, the Supreme Court decided Comstock.
The Court adopted a historical approach to the use of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Because the mandate is utterly unprecedented, it is unlikely to be upheld under a historical approach.

Federal Government's Claim:  Even if the government cannot win using the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause arguments, the federal health insurance mandate can be justified under the government's taxing authority.
Virginia's Response:
1) The penalty for not buying insurance is not a tax. Congress called it a "penalty" and claimed authority to act only under the Commerce Clause. To argue otherwise now ignores what Congress actually did.
2) A penalty for inaction is not a tax of any kid known to the Constitution, when judged historically.

Cuccinelli Thrills Pro-Family NOVA Crowd on Monday

Nearly 100 grassroots activists, elected officials and candidates for office attended the Prince William and Manassas Family Alliance Gala dinner Monday evening where they were addressed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

Cuccinelli gave an update on the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Commonwealth by his office concerning the recently passed federal health care legislation. Cuccinelli argues that the provision in the health care act that requires Americans to purchase health care insurance is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Interestingly, Cuccinelli referenced George Washington University Law School professor and oft quoted “legal expert” Jonathan Turley in his defense, saying that Turley has argued that the federal health care act could indeed be the final blow to the Founder’s vision of “federalism.” Should Cuccinelli’s suit, or the other suits being brought by other states, fail, Turley insinuates that there would then be very little left outside the control or influence of the federal government.

Cuccinelli added, if the government can compel its citizens to purchase one product (health insurance) there is nothing to stop it from purchasing another product (say, a car made by GM).

Essentially, Cuccinelli is arguing that individual citizens who do not have health insurance, and thus are not participating in the “interstate commerce” of health care insurance, cannot be compelled to purchase health insurance by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the federal constitution. Case law surrounding the interstate commerce clause is lengthy and confusing to say the least. However, there appears to be no other example where the courts have ruled economic inactivity to be interstate commerce (one exception being from 1792 when Congress compelled people to buy guns – really).

Ultimately, this case is likely to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Cuccinelli estimates that won’t take place until at least mid-2012. The individual mandate in the health care bill doesn’t take effect until 2014.

Currently, 21 states, including Virginia, are involved with some type of lawsuit against the federal government concerning the health care bill. The two primary suits are in Virginia and Florida. The Virginia General Assembly also passed the Health Care Freedom Act during this year’s session, legislation that protects Virginians from being forced to buy health insurance.

Cuccinelli urged the crowd Monday to take advantage of the times to educate and inform their friends and family, particularly their children, on the first principles of our nation’s founding documents, such as the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Many people today do not know enough about our Founding or what those documents say to understand the implications of the federal government’s take over of what has always been a private enterprise.

Few disagree that there is need for some type of health reform in our nation. But few outside the beltway or among the academic left believe that the federal government is capable of managing our nation’s health care system wisely.

Source:  The Family Foundation

Unconstitutional Mandate

Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli released the following Op-Ed, which ran on National Review Online last week:

Unconstitutional Mandate
Virginia's Obamacare lawsuit is about more than just health care.

There are very good reasons that the federal government has never, in the last 221 years, used the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as a vehicle for requiring citizens to purchase goods or services from other citizens.

The first is textual. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that "the Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States." Although there have been disputes about just how far this should reach into commerce that is entirely intrastate, until now, it has been recognized that this constitutional provision deals with regulation of commerce - that is, with the use of law to impose reason and order on the voluntary commercial actions of citizens, as well as on activities that substantially affect commerce. An individual mandate to purchase health insurance is not regulation in that sense.

Another good reason this has not been done before is that it turns the Commerce Clause into an alternative, off-books funding mechanism. According to the "findings" section of the law itself, the mandate achieves economies of scale, but in reality, it achieves income redistribution. The law caps the amount that insurance companies can charge based on age, and forbids them to exclude those with pre-existing conditions. As such, the young and healthy people the law forces to buy insurance are overcharged for the purpose of subsidizing the old and those with pre-existing conditions.

One of the drafters of the health-care legislation acknowledged that it uses the Commerce Clause to redistribute income. Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, admitted during the Senate reconciliation debate, "This is also an income shift. . . . This legislation will have the effect of addressing . . . mal-distribution of income in America."

Congress could have achieved this in an aboveboard fashion by establishing a special insurance fund for persons with pre-existing conditions, to be funded with general tax revenues, but it lacked the political will to do so. The Sixteenth Amendment authorizes the progressive income tax. It, the taxing powers, and the spending power are the traditional sources of the federal government's authority to create social-welfare programs such as Medicaid. The use of a purchasing mandate instead crosses an important constitutional line.

Do most Americans think Congress has the power to force them to buy products from private companies, and to mandate that those products be overpriced for the purpose of income redistribution? Do most Americans think Congress should have this power? Clearly, the authority is not something that should be conceded until after careful consideration by the Supreme Court.

Fortunately, Virginia's governor and legislature acted decisively - and in a bipartisan fashion - to adopt Virginia's new anti-mandate law, the Health Care Freedom Act. The law states that in Virginia, citizens cannot be compelled to purchase health insurance against their will. It is in direct conflict with the federal health-care bill, and we have filed a lawsuit to defend it.

(This conflict can be expeditiously heard in a federal court in Virginia, which is why Virginia has not joined the other states suing in Florida. We fully support their lawsuit, and we have offered assistance in the form of shared research and an amicus brief to the Florida court on their behalf. We welcome the same from them.)

Virginia's challenge to the health-care bill is not just about buying insurance. It is about the limits of the power of the federal government and its relationship to citizens. Ultimately, it is about liberty itself.

- Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, Attorney General of Virginia