Category Archives: Ken Cuccinelli

Virginia Attorney General on Today’s Supreme Court Ruling

June 28, 2012
Dear Friends,

This is a dark day for the American people, the Constitution, and the rule of law. This is a dark day for American liberty.

This decision goes against the very principle that America has a federal government of limited powers; a principle that the Founding Fathers clearly wrote into the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The Constitution was meant to restrict the power of government precisely for the purpose of protecting your liberty and mine from the overreaching hand of the federal government.

This unprecedented decision says that Congress has the authority to force citizens to buy private goods or face fines – a power it has never had in American history, and a power King George III and Parliament didn’t have over us when we were mere subjects of Great Britain. Since the federal government itself could never articulate to the court a constitutional limit to this power, Congress has gained an unlimited power to force citizens to buy anything.

I am disappointed with the court’s ruling and with the unprecedented attack on American liberty the president and the previous Congress have created with this law.

Stay tuned – I will be providing more analysis on this in the coming hours, as well as next steps.


Ken Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General of Virginia

1 Comment

Posted by on June 28, 2012 in Healthcare, Ken Cuccinelli


Ken Cuccinelli Crushing Rival Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling in Governor Bid

Cuccinelli and Bolling

In next year’s Virginia Governors race, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, of national fame for filing the first anti-Obamacare lawsuit the day after its passage, is walloping heir-apparent Lt. Governor Bill Bolling among Republican voters 51-15% according to a poll released today by Quinnipiac University.

Cuccinelli shook up Virginia politics by announcing his bid for the Governorship and consequently angered Bolling, who was ‘next-in-line’, but free market politics will allow the voters to select who is ‘next-in-line’, not party seniority.

This is going to be interesting.


Posted by on June 6, 2012 in Ken Cuccinelli


AG Ken Cuccinelli at Mechanicsville Tea Party event Thursday Night

Cuccinelli at Richmond Tea Party 2011

Fresh off the Supreme Court case regarding the Constitutionality of Obamacare last week, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will address the Tea Party patriots of Mechanicsville this Thursday at 7pm.

Come out and have a listen to what the AG and 2013 candidate for Governor has to say.

8700 Bell Creek Road, Mechanicsville.

More about the Mechanicsville Tea Party here.

1 Comment

Posted by on April 2, 2012 in Ken Cuccinelli


It’s Official, Cuccinelli formally launches gubernatorial bid

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II announced that his campaign filed papers with the State Board of Elections Thursday to formally establish a campaign committee to run for governor in 2013.

Cuccinelli said he is running for Governor to continue the work he has undertaken during his tenure as Attorney General and as a State Senator, he also stated, “I will continue my work to strengthen our economy, preserve our liberty, and to promote the principles of smaller, more efficient state government, accountable to the people it serves. I look forward to sharing my vision for the Commonwealth following the November elections.”

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 22, 2012 in Ken Cuccinelli


Virginia Attorney General calls Obama and his administration the biggest lawbreakers to run the federal government in our lifetimes

Ken Cuccinelli, the courageous Attorney General of Virginia appeared on C-SPAN’s Newsmakers program today and, as usual, exhibited extreme candor in discussing the Obamacare, the presidential election, and the Tea Party movement. While discussing the importance of the Republican candidate prevailing in the 2012 presidential election he made the following statement in a very matter of fact manner.

“This president and his administration are the biggest lawbreakers to run the federal government in our lifetimes.”

And then he elaborated…

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Posted by on March 18, 2012 in Barack Obama, Ken Cuccinelli


Obama compared to a Monarch

Recently former Attorney General Ed Meese says the Obama administration’s “disdain for Congress” and its efforts to consolidate power within the executive branch through the use of “czars” makes it “as close to a monarchy as since the days of George III.” However, as Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli pointed out on 9/12/2010 King George the 3rd and the Parliament of Britain that we rebelled against, respected the liberty of the colonists of America more than the Congress and the President of the United States of America.

And on a lighter note covering the same heavy subject, The BHO Show channel on YouTube has posted this Henry the Eighth song parody.




Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus; Cuccinelli to run for Governor 2013

According to the Washington Post, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will reveal his plans to run for Governor next week and make a formal announcement after the legislative session is over this spring.

Cuccinelli, a tea party hero who garnered national attention for suing the federal government over the new health-care law, expects to make a formal announcement after the legislative session in the spring, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so they could speak freely about his plans.


Posted by on November 30, 2011 in Ken Cuccinelli


Tea Party is still vibrant and relevant.

We have all heard the main stream media’s reports that the Tea Party movement is losing steam and fading away. I guess no one has told the Virginia Tea Party Alliance. Unlike most of the country, Virginia has a big election this year with every one of the 140 seats of the General Assembly on the ballot. The House of Delegates currently has a Republican majority but the in Senate the Democrats have a slim 22 -18 majority and with a three seat pick up the Republicans can flip the Senate. The Virginia Tea Party Alliance has formed a PAC and they have produced this ad to continue what they started in 2009 with the election of Governor McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.


Cuccinelli breaks down the 4th Circuit Court ruling of Obamacare mandate challenge

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli breaks down the recent ruling by the 4th Circuit Court masterfully in his most recent newsletter..

As you all probably know, we heard from the Fourth Circuit last week in Virginia’s
healthcare lawsuit.

The court decided unanimously to throw the case out on standing and not address the
merits of our constitutional arguments.

However, the story is far more complicated than that.  You may recall that Liberty University’s suit was heard at the very same time as Virginia’s. The court threw that case out as well; however, two of the judges stated
what they would have done on the merits, and that has interesting implications as we press on to the Supreme Court.

Here are the things I’m going to address today:

-The court’s ruling that Virginia lacks standing to bring the lawsuit;

-The implications of the court’s standing ruling for state sovereignty; and

-The extraordinary position of the court as compared with Federalist 51 (you know,
written by that radical guy by the name of James Madison…).

Then I’ll do a quick walk-through of the Liberty ruling, and I’ll explain how itrelates to Virginia’s case.  Finally, I’ll note the three unique aspects of what this court did last Thursday that make the decisions true outliers that need to be corrected.

The Court’s Ruling

Before the federal health care bill became law, Virginia passed the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act (VHCFA).  The VHCFA applies to employers and governments in Virginia and anyone else who might seek to force a Virginian to buy health insurance. With limited exceptions, it provides that no one can mandate that a Virginian buy health insurance.

Along came the federal government and passed the federal health care bill. In that bill was the individual mandate requiring most all citizens to buy federal government-approved health insurance.  The individual
mandate conflicted with the VHCFA, and under the supremacy clause the federal law would trump; however, the supremacy clause does not apply if the federal law is unconstitutional.

Thus was born Virginia’s lawsuit.

We sued the day the President signed the bill – May 23, 2010 – the 235th anniversary of Patrick Henry’s ‘give me liberty, or give me death’ speech.  So began our fight for liberty against the unconstitutional federal mandate.

To bring any lawsuit, a plaintiff must have what is called “standing.” Standing is the right to sue.

To have standing, a plaintiff has to be able to show three things: 1) an injury; 2) that is currently occurring or is certain to occur; and 3) the court must be able to remedy the injury if the plaintiff wins.

Virginia’s injury is that the federal government’s health care law stops Virginia from exercising its legal authority to regulate health insurance mandates using the VHCFA.

This is an injury unique to a state.  You and I don’t have a code of laws.  States do.  And States have the right to
protect their code of laws.  In fact, as attorney general, I have an obligation to protect Virginia’s laws (the district court judge in our case explicitly noted that responsibility).

Our suit was premised on redressing this sovereign injury.  However, the Fourth Circuit rejected our position, stating that, to allow Virginia to bring this suit would allow States to act as “roving constitutional watchdogs”
over the federal government.  And yes, that quote comes straight from the opinion!

We now know what caused the earthquake in Virginia – James Madison obviously saw a
draft version of the final order and rolled over in his grave!

This ruling is an extraordinary assault on state sovereignty and the role for States
envisioned by the Founders in our constitutional system.

If you read Federalist 51 – written by that constitutional radical from Virginia, James Madison – you will find that States are supposed to check federal power when the federal government gets outside its constitutional

Federalist 51:

“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [federalism], and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments [separation of powers].  Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.  The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

How do you suppose the “different governments” are supposed to “control each other?”  Contests of authority are carried out in the federal courts – exactly what we are doing, and directly contrary to the Fourth
Circuit’s opinion! In fact, as the United States Supreme Court noted in 1992 in New York v. United States,

“In 1788, in the course of explaining to the citizens of New York why the recently drafted Constitution provided for federal courts, Alexander Hamilton observed: ‘The erection of a new government, whatever care or wisdom may distinguish the work, cannot fail to originate questions of intricacy and nicety; and these may,
in a particular manner, be expected to flow from the establishment of a constitution founded upon the total or partial incorporation of a number of distinct sovereignties.’ Hamilton’s prediction has proved quite accurate. . . .
While no one disputes the proposition that the Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers, the task of ascertaining the constitutional line between federal and state power has given rise to many of the Court’s mostdifficult and celebrated cases. At least as far back as Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 324, 4 L. Ed. 97 (1816), the Court has resolved questions ‘of great importance and delicacy’ in determining whether particular sovereign powers have been granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government
or have been retained by the States.”

The Liberty Ruling

Liberty lost its case in the district court in the Western District of Virginia (we were in the Eastern District of Virginia), and so they appealed to the Fourth Circuit.  Their oral argument was the same day and before the same three-judge panel as Virginia’s.

The Liberty plaintiffs were found not to have standing in their case under what is known as the Anti-Injunction Act or “AIA”.  I won’t go into this, but suffice it to say that other judges around the country considered the AIA in
other cases and not one judge anywhere in America found this statute to apply. In fact, even President Obama’s Justice Department conceded in the Fourth Circuit that the AIA did not bar Liberty’s suit.

So,in addition to being the only appeals court to deny a State the authority to defend its own law, they are also the only court in any of the health care cases to find that the AIA applies.  That’s two “unique” conclusions.

The vote to dismiss the case based on the AIA was 2-1.

Normally, when a case is kicked out under the AIA (or on standing), the judges do not comment on the merits of the case.  To do so would violate the long held principle that the federal courts do not issue merely “advisory”
opinions.  However, in Liberty’s case, two judges did comment on the merits.

Judge Davis was the one judge that voted against kicking the case out under theAIA.  He said that he agreed with all of the other judges around the country who had concluded that the AIA did not apply. He then explained how he would have ruled on the merits, indicating he would have found Congress had the power to implement the mandate and penalty under the commerce clause.

It was not unusual for Judge Davis to issue an opinion that discussed the merits. Because he voted not to kick the case out under the AIA, all he was doing was saying how he thought the case should have been resolved.

Despite finding that the case was not properly before the court because of the AIA, Judge Wynn wrote an opinion that also addressed the merits of Liberty’s challenge. This opinion provided the THIRD “unique” aspect of the Fourth Circuit’s health care opinions.  Judge Wynn said that he would have upheld the federal health care law under the taxing power of the constitution.

So far, 16 different judges have addressed this subject and he is the ONLY judge in America to say he would uphold the federal health care law under the taxing power.

This is truly an extraordinary position.  What it means is that Congress can pass a law to tell you to do anything (as long as it doesn’t violate some other part of the constitution like the free speech or double jeopardy clauses),
and as long as they fine you ($$$) if you disobey their command, that fine is an exercise of Congress’ constitutional taxing power and that makes the underlying statutory command constitutional!

Congress could pass a law ordering us all to wear purple on Mondays, pink on Tuesdays,etc. and fine you $50 if you disobey.  And Judge Wynn’s reasoning would say that the $50 fine is an exercise of the taxing power and therefore such a statute was constitutional.


So, we lost in the Fourth Circuit; however, we are working on our appeal right now and will file it as soon as practicable.  And the fact that the Fourth Circuit is utterly alone in three extraordinary aspects of its rulings
leads me to be cautiously confident that the Supreme Court will take a different course regarding all three of those aspects of the Fourth Circuit’s decisions.

I am still cautiously optimistic that the individual mandate will be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and I am hopeful that we will have such a ruling by the end of June of 2012. Whether that happens in our case or in another does not matter so long as the correct constitutional answer is reached.

The federal government will likely try to slow the case down by asking for more time to file its brief in our case and by asking to drag out the appeal in the 11th circuit (where the Florida case with 26 other states wa decided). So it is still possible that this will not be decided before Election Day 2012; however, if you were President Obama, do you really want this being argued in the Supreme Court in October of 2012?  I would think he’d want it disposed of in June 2012 rather than watching a maelstrom of news coverage related to the case on the verge of the election.

Nonetheless, they keep doing everything they can to drag it out.

I will keep you informed!


Ken's Signature

Ken Cuccinelli, II

Attorney General of Virginia

%d bloggers like this: