Posted on 09/09/2011 6:03:25 AM PDT by Gopher Broke
Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General
For media inquiries only, contact: Brian J. Gottstein Email: bgottstein@oag.state.va.us (best contact method) Phone: 804-786-5874
Cuccinelli expresses disappointment in Fourth Circuit’s ruling in health care case
RICHMOND, VA (September 8, 2011)— Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli responded today to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Virginia’s lawsuit against the federal government’s health care reform act.
“Obviously, we are disappointed in the ruling. Our disappointment not only stems from the fact that the court ruled against us, but also that the court did not even reach the merits on the key question of Virginia’s lawsuit—whether Congress has a power never before recognized in American history: the power to force one citizen to purchase a good or service from another citizen,” said Cuccinelli.
In summarizing the ruling, Cuccinelli noted that, by resting its decision on an alleged lack of standing by the commonwealth to even bring its lawsuit, the court dismissed Virginia’s claimed injury as illusory.
“Contrary to the court’s suggestion, this suit has always been about vindicating the power of the Virginia General Assembly to legislate about a subject that has historically been viewed as falling within the areas the Constitution left to the states. Health, safety, and welfare issues have long been recognized as being part of the powers reserved to the states by the Constitution,” Cuccinelli said.
Cuccinelli noted that the court’s stated reasons placed the ruling’s reasoning at odds with constitutional design. “In rejecting Virginia’s right to bring the action, the court said that allowing such suits would allow the states to serve as ‘roving constitutional watchdogs.’ This was exactly a role that the Founding Fathers planned for the states to have. As James Madison wrote, under the Constitution, ‘the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments…Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments [state and federal] will control each other…’”
Cuccinelli continued, “Not only does the court’s opinion reject the role of the states envisioned by the Constitution, it dismisses an act of the Virginia General Assembly—the Health Care Freedom Act—as a mere pretense or pretext. It is unfortunate that the court would be so dismissive of a piece of legislation that passed both houses of a divided legislature by overwhelming margins with broad, bipartisan support.”
Cuccinelli vowed to appeal the court’s ruling.
This statement was released by Liberty Counsel, on the other case that was struck down yesterday.....
Read this Liberty Alert online at www.LC.org
September 8, 2011
Divided Court of Appeals Issues Ruling on ObamaCare Lawsuit
Today, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as “ObamaCare”) in the case of Liberty University v. Geithner and issued a separate opinion on the case of Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius. Liberty Counsel represents Liberty University and two private individuals, challenging both the individual and the employer mandates in ObamaCare. .
In the case of Liberty University, the divided court ruled that the mandate is a “tax” under the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), and thus the court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits until the “tax” is paid and a refund sought by the taxpayer. Thus, the case could not be brought until the mandate becomes effective in 2014. Every court which has considered this question has found that the mandate is a “penalty,” not a tax, and the AIA does not apply. Even the federal government defendants argued that the AIA does not apply and that the statutory intent clearly indicated that the AIA was inapplicable.
The panel of judges for the case included one judge appointed by President Clinton, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, and two judges appointed by President Obama, Judges Andre M. Davis and James A. Wynn Jr. Judge Motz wrote the opinion, in which Wynn concurred. Judge Davis wrote a dissenting opinion. In the Virginia case, the court ruled 3-0 that Virginia does not have standing to bring a challenge to the individual mandate, because that right is for individuals affected by the mandate. In the case of Liberty University, the next and final stop in the battle over ObamaCare will be the United States Supreme Court. Liberty Counsel will file a petition with the High Court.
From the beginning everyone knew that the final frontier in the battle over ObamaCare would be the United States Supreme Court. The court’s ruling goes against every court in America that considered this case. Even the United States Government argued that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply to this case. We look forward to the final round in this battle over ObamaCare at the United States Supreme Court.
Of all the reasons the court could have dismissed the case, ‘no standing’ is, without a doubt, the most egregious and idiotic.
FYI
Things like this are stepping stones to revolution.
When they make it impossible to peaceably resist tyranny,
they make it inevitable that non-peaceful means will have to be employed.
Get the pitch forks ready.
The court did not reach the merits of the case because the conclusion is obvious to even the Clinton and Obama appointees; Obamacare is clearly unconstitutional.
The fact that even the government argued that the AIA does not apply in this case makes this decision even more egregious.
One day these judges will face justice themselves.
so shut up and appeal it to the USSCt
Does the appeal now go “en banc”?
Exactly. Well said.
Which is what he vowed to do.
Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776
II. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.III. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, 1786
And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
From the Liberty case ...
Before the district court, the Secretary moved to dismiss the case, contending inter alia that the federal tax Anti- Injunction Act (AIA), I.R.C. AS: 7421(a), barred the district court from reaching the merits because the challenged penalty is to "be assessed and collected" in the same manner as a tax and other penalties to which the AIA clearly applies.The Virgina case rests on different grounds.
As the Secretary points out, such a claim would run afoul of the prohibition against states suing the United States on behalf of their citizens. See Snapp, 458 U.S. at 610 n.16; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 485-86 (1923). This prohibition rests on the recognition that a state possesses no legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from the government of the United States. See Mellon, 262 U.S. at 485-86. With respect to the federal government's relationship to individual citizens, "it is the United States, and not the state, which represents [citizens] as parens patriae." Id. at 486. When a state brings a suit seeking to protect individuals from a federal statute, it usurps this sovereign prerogative of the federal government and threatens the "general supremacy of federal law." Pennsylvania v. Kleppe, 533 F.2d 668, 677 (D.C. Cir. 1976). A state has no interest in the rights of its individual citizens sufficient to justify such an invasion of federal sovereignty. See id. at 677-78 (noting that the "federalism interest" in "avoidance of state inference with the exercise of federal powers" will "predominate and bar" any parens patriae lawsuit against the United States).
Denying the peons and peasants the right to question the King’s authority is NOT a recipe for a peaceful countryside.
So let me get this straight. The 4th Circuit holds that the Virginia General Assembly doesn’t legislate in the interests of individual citizens within their state?
No standing? Really?
Nice law degrees on your walls, Circuit idiots. Common sense is free. Get some.
Oops. That's true in the Liberty case, but not the Virginia case. The Virginia case was dismissed for lack of standing; as the state improperly attempting to stand in the shoes of an individual.
Look at the blockquote in post 15 - it’ll make your head explode.
Unbelievable.
The courts don’t understand supremacy and constitutionality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.