There's only 13 days left to go before the January 11 special election to fill Morgan Griffith's vacated seat. The Greg Habeeb for Delegate campaign is running at full speed toward election day.
TODAY, December 29, Congressman Goodlatte and Greg will knock on doors to reach out to voters of the 8th. Volunteers will meet at HQ - 115 Roanoke Boulevard in Salem - at 2 PM. If you are available to join them, please email Will Burton at willyburton@gmail.com or call HQ at 540-915-2962.
Also, we are still looking for volunteers on election day. If you are available even for only an hour, please let me know by replying to this email.
Thanks.
Kjersten Croke
Salem Republican Committee Chair
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
Press Release: Goodlatte's Efforts to Focus on U.S. Constitution Successful
Contact: Kathryn Rexrode
Date: December 23, 2010
Phone: 202.225.5431
Fax: 202.225.9681
Washington, D.C.: Today, at the urging of Congressman Bob Goodlatte (VA-06), the House Republican Leadership released House Rules for the 112th Congress that recommit the Congress to the text of the U.S. Constitution.
As part of the new Rules for the 112th Congress, all Members of the House will be required to submit a formal statement pointing to the exact Constitutional provision that authorizes each bill they introduce. In addition, as a further demonstration of its commitment to hold true to the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded, the new Rules include Rep. Goodlatte's recommendation that the U.S. Constitution will be read aloud on the House Floor during the first week of the 112th Congress.
“One of the resounding themes I have heard from my constituents is that Congress should adhere to the Constitution and the finite list of powers it granted to the federal government,” said Congressman Goodlatte. “I am very pleased that the Republican Leadership included my recommendation that the U.S. Constitution be read aloud on the House Floor during the first week of session. This historic and symbolic reading is long overdue and shows that the new majority in the House of Representatives truly is dedicated to the U.S. Constitution and the principles for which it stands. Additionally, I would like to thank Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli for his efforts to advance this initiative.”
As the written expression of the consent the American people gave to their government – a consent with restrictions and boundaries – the public reading of the Constitution will set the tone for the 112th Congress.
Goodlatte is a senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over Constitutional amendments and other issues pertaining to the U.S. Constitution.
Date: December 23, 2010
Phone: 202.225.5431
Fax: 202.225.9681
Washington, D.C.: Today, at the urging of Congressman Bob Goodlatte (VA-06), the House Republican Leadership released House Rules for the 112th Congress that recommit the Congress to the text of the U.S. Constitution.
As part of the new Rules for the 112th Congress, all Members of the House will be required to submit a formal statement pointing to the exact Constitutional provision that authorizes each bill they introduce. In addition, as a further demonstration of its commitment to hold true to the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded, the new Rules include Rep. Goodlatte's recommendation that the U.S. Constitution will be read aloud on the House Floor during the first week of the 112th Congress.
“One of the resounding themes I have heard from my constituents is that Congress should adhere to the Constitution and the finite list of powers it granted to the federal government,” said Congressman Goodlatte. “I am very pleased that the Republican Leadership included my recommendation that the U.S. Constitution be read aloud on the House Floor during the first week of session. This historic and symbolic reading is long overdue and shows that the new majority in the House of Representatives truly is dedicated to the U.S. Constitution and the principles for which it stands. Additionally, I would like to thank Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli for his efforts to advance this initiative.”
As the written expression of the consent the American people gave to their government – a consent with restrictions and boundaries – the public reading of the Constitution will set the tone for the 112th Congress.
Goodlatte is a senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over Constitutional amendments and other issues pertaining to the U.S. Constitution.
From Congressman Bob Goodlatte --- Virginia’s Historical Court Ruling
Weekly Column: December 24, 2010
Just weeks ago a significant ruling with national implications came out of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Judge Henry Hudson became the first judge to rule that Section 1501, the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision, which is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate,” of the new health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is unconstitutional.
Almost immediately after this misguided legislation was passed by the Congress in March of this year, states Attorneys General began filing lawsuits against the federal government. The health care reform law included $17 billion in new taxes on Americans who do not purchase health insurance. Over a dozen states, including Virginia, filed suit claiming that this individual insurance mandate is unconstitutional. Never before in the history of our country has a tax been levied on individual Americans by their government with the purpose of forcing them to do something the government wants them to do. I applaud all of these states for taking action and I have cosponsored legislation which would prohibit funding for the implementation or enforcement of the individual health insurance mandate. All Americans should be worried anytime the federal government tries to trample on or ignore our Constitution and in fact a recent CBS news poll shows that 62 percent of Americans believe that lawmakers should continue to challenge the government takeover of health care.
That is precisely why the recent ruling in the Virginia case is such welcome news. It marks a key first step toward the Supreme Court hearing the case against the individual mandate. Last week, I joined a number of other Members of Congress in sending a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder urging the Justice Department to request that the Supreme Court take this issue up in a timely manner in lieu of a long, drawn out appeals process. Our citizens and states alike will be greatly affected by this case and deserve certainty.
While this is only one of the most troubling provisions of the new health care reform law there are a whole host of others. That is why I have cosponsored several bills that would repeal this new law in its entirety. Rather than dictating medical decisions from Washington, we should be concentrating our efforts on making premiums more affordable for all Americans and giving them the freedom to choose the plan that best fits their needs.
We need a positive, patient-centered strategy that puts patients, families and doctors, not Washington bureaucrats, in control of personal health care decisions. While we can all agree that our current health care system needs to be reformed, the new health care law was not the right way to do it which is why we must repeal it and replace it with commonsense measures that expand access and choices while lowering costs.
To contact me about this or any other matter, please visit my website at www.goodlatte.house.gov.
Just weeks ago a significant ruling with national implications came out of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Judge Henry Hudson became the first judge to rule that Section 1501, the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision, which is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate,” of the new health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is unconstitutional.
Almost immediately after this misguided legislation was passed by the Congress in March of this year, states Attorneys General began filing lawsuits against the federal government. The health care reform law included $17 billion in new taxes on Americans who do not purchase health insurance. Over a dozen states, including Virginia, filed suit claiming that this individual insurance mandate is unconstitutional. Never before in the history of our country has a tax been levied on individual Americans by their government with the purpose of forcing them to do something the government wants them to do. I applaud all of these states for taking action and I have cosponsored legislation which would prohibit funding for the implementation or enforcement of the individual health insurance mandate. All Americans should be worried anytime the federal government tries to trample on or ignore our Constitution and in fact a recent CBS news poll shows that 62 percent of Americans believe that lawmakers should continue to challenge the government takeover of health care.
That is precisely why the recent ruling in the Virginia case is such welcome news. It marks a key first step toward the Supreme Court hearing the case against the individual mandate. Last week, I joined a number of other Members of Congress in sending a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder urging the Justice Department to request that the Supreme Court take this issue up in a timely manner in lieu of a long, drawn out appeals process. Our citizens and states alike will be greatly affected by this case and deserve certainty.
While this is only one of the most troubling provisions of the new health care reform law there are a whole host of others. That is why I have cosponsored several bills that would repeal this new law in its entirety. Rather than dictating medical decisions from Washington, we should be concentrating our efforts on making premiums more affordable for all Americans and giving them the freedom to choose the plan that best fits their needs.
We need a positive, patient-centered strategy that puts patients, families and doctors, not Washington bureaucrats, in control of personal health care decisions. While we can all agree that our current health care system needs to be reformed, the new health care law was not the right way to do it which is why we must repeal it and replace it with commonsense measures that expand access and choices while lowering costs.
To contact me about this or any other matter, please visit my website at www.goodlatte.house.gov.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Statement of Rep. Bob Goodlatte in Opposition to Pork-Filled Omnibus Bill
Contact: Kathryn Rexrode
December 16, 2010
Washington, D.C.:
Congressman Bob Goodlatte issued the following statement in strong opposition to the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill which was proposed by the U.S. Senate. It has been reported that this legislation includes over 6,700 earmarks totaling $8.3 billion.
“In the past two years, with our economy still struggling, the Democrats in Congress have worked hard to raise taxes, increase federal spending, allow our national debt to spiral out of control, and pass legislation that gives the federal government more control of our daily lives. They have spent trillions on bailouts and stimulus packages to help grow our economy, but all it has done is increase our debt and the size of the federal bureaucracy while leaving our nation’s unemployment rate hovering around ten percent. Despite the outcry from the American people the Democrats spending spree continues.
Today, the U.S. Senate is expected to take-up an omnibus spending bill which will significantly increase federal spending. This is the direct result of the fact the Democrat controlled Congress failed to pass a budget or enact any of the twelve annual spending bills that fund all government operations. I remain firmly opposed to this legislation which will increase expenditures by hundreds of billions of dollars and includes over 6,700 earmarks. At a time when Washington is already spending $7 million every minute of every hour of every day and borrowing 42 cents of every dollar spent, we simply cannot afford to spend even more.
It is time Congress takes control of spending instead of letting it control the Congress. Immediate action must be taken to stop this pork-laden omnibus bill which represents an unprecedented $1.1 trillion spending of taxpayers’ dollars and instead we must get serious about cutting federal spending.”
December 16, 2010
Washington, D.C.:
Congressman Bob Goodlatte issued the following statement in strong opposition to the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill which was proposed by the U.S. Senate. It has been reported that this legislation includes over 6,700 earmarks totaling $8.3 billion.
“In the past two years, with our economy still struggling, the Democrats in Congress have worked hard to raise taxes, increase federal spending, allow our national debt to spiral out of control, and pass legislation that gives the federal government more control of our daily lives. They have spent trillions on bailouts and stimulus packages to help grow our economy, but all it has done is increase our debt and the size of the federal bureaucracy while leaving our nation’s unemployment rate hovering around ten percent. Despite the outcry from the American people the Democrats spending spree continues.
Today, the U.S. Senate is expected to take-up an omnibus spending bill which will significantly increase federal spending. This is the direct result of the fact the Democrat controlled Congress failed to pass a budget or enact any of the twelve annual spending bills that fund all government operations. I remain firmly opposed to this legislation which will increase expenditures by hundreds of billions of dollars and includes over 6,700 earmarks. At a time when Washington is already spending $7 million every minute of every hour of every day and borrowing 42 cents of every dollar spent, we simply cannot afford to spend even more.
It is time Congress takes control of spending instead of letting it control the Congress. Immediate action must be taken to stop this pork-laden omnibus bill which represents an unprecedented $1.1 trillion spending of taxpayers’ dollars and instead we must get serious about cutting federal spending.”
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
IMPORTANT --- Upcoming Events Through Special Election Day of January 11, 2011
To all:
In addition to our Salem Republican Committee Meeting tonight; there is a lot happening between now and the Date of the Special Election on January 11, 2011.Any support that you can lend to the Greg Habeeb Campaign for Delegate is appreciated!
UPCOMING EVENTS
1) Greg Habeeb for HOD Campaign HQ - 115 Boulevard, Salem, VA. 24153
2) Volunteer at HQ - please email Chris Godbey at cgodbey.sc@gmail.com or call 803-542-6722.
3) Salem Republican Committee Meeting - December 14, 2010. 6 p.m. City of Salem Courthouse. Salem Virginia.
4) Griffith Reception for Habeeb - Wednesday, December 15, 2010. 6 p.m. 1234 Pickwick Lane. Salem, VA.
5) Congressional Swearing in Ceremony - Wednesday, January 5, 2011. Washington DC.
6) Special Election - January 11, 2011. VOTE!
In addition to our Salem Republican Committee Meeting tonight; there is a lot happening between now and the Date of the Special Election on January 11, 2011.Any support that you can lend to the Greg Habeeb Campaign for Delegate is appreciated!
UPCOMING EVENTS
1) Greg Habeeb for HOD Campaign HQ - 115 Boulevard, Salem, VA. 24153
2) Volunteer at HQ - please email Chris Godbey at cgodbey.sc@gmail.com or call 803-542-6722.
3) Salem Republican Committee Meeting - December 14, 2010. 6 p.m. City of Salem Courthouse. Salem Virginia.
4) Griffith Reception for Habeeb - Wednesday, December 15, 2010. 6 p.m. 1234 Pickwick Lane. Salem, VA.
5) Congressional Swearing in Ceremony - Wednesday, January 5, 2011. Washington DC.
6) Special Election - January 11, 2011. VOTE!
Salem Republicans meeting is this evening!
Please mark your calendars and plan to attend our next committee meeting on Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 6 PM, located at the Salem City Courthouse - 2 E. Calhoun St. Click here for a map. Please invite your family and friends to attend. This meeting will be a great opportunity to hear from our 8th Legislative District House of Delegates candidate, Greg Habeeb. I hope to see many of you there!
Thanks,
Kjersten Croke
Salem Republican Committee Chair
Thanks,
Kjersten Croke
Salem Republican Committee Chair
Press Release --- Habeeb Applauds Ruling Against Obama Health Care Reform Legislation
From: Greg Habeeb for Delegate
December 13, 2010
For Immediate Release
Contact: Chris Godbey
press@greghabeeb.com | 540-915-2962
SALEM – In a statement release from his headquarters today, Greg Habeeb, Republican nominee for the House of Delegates, hailed Judge Hudson's ruling against President Obama’s health care reform legislation as a victory for the people of Virginia.
“For too long the Federal government has expanded the scope and authority of federal regulation under the auspices of the Commerce Clause,” said Habeeb. “This judgment is a victory in the war to restore the proper balance between government and the people.”
In a ruling issued earlier today, Federal Judge Henry Hudson struck down the individual mandate in the president’s health care bill. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli brought suit against the legislation on behalf of the state of Virginia.
Habeeb praised Cuccinelli’s courage in leading the fight to have the individual mandate in the health care reform bill declared unconstitutional. “As Attorney General Cuccinelli so eloquently argues, ‘if the Federal government is now permitted to regulate the lack of commercial activity and to compel the purchase of a private product in the private market place, there is nothing left outside the scope of the Federal government,’” he said.
“I commend Attorney General Cuccinelli for taking the lead in this fight and I want to commend the Republicans in the Virginia legislature and the handful of their brave Democratic colleagues who stood up for Virginia and passed the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act - the law which served as the underpinning for Virginia's legal challenge.
“I look forward to working with members of both parties in Richmond to craft commonsense legislation that improves access to healthcare, reduces costs and protects the quality of care,” Habeeb said.
December 13, 2010
For Immediate Release
Contact: Chris Godbey
press@greghabeeb.com | 540-915-2962
SALEM – In a statement release from his headquarters today, Greg Habeeb, Republican nominee for the House of Delegates, hailed Judge Hudson's ruling against President Obama’s health care reform legislation as a victory for the people of Virginia.
“For too long the Federal government has expanded the scope and authority of federal regulation under the auspices of the Commerce Clause,” said Habeeb. “This judgment is a victory in the war to restore the proper balance between government and the people.”
In a ruling issued earlier today, Federal Judge Henry Hudson struck down the individual mandate in the president’s health care bill. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli brought suit against the legislation on behalf of the state of Virginia.
Habeeb praised Cuccinelli’s courage in leading the fight to have the individual mandate in the health care reform bill declared unconstitutional. “As Attorney General Cuccinelli so eloquently argues, ‘if the Federal government is now permitted to regulate the lack of commercial activity and to compel the purchase of a private product in the private market place, there is nothing left outside the scope of the Federal government,’” he said.
“I commend Attorney General Cuccinelli for taking the lead in this fight and I want to commend the Republicans in the Virginia legislature and the handful of their brave Democratic colleagues who stood up for Virginia and passed the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act - the law which served as the underpinning for Virginia's legal challenge.
“I look forward to working with members of both parties in Richmond to craft commonsense legislation that improves access to healthcare, reduces costs and protects the quality of care,” Habeeb said.
Friday, December 10, 2010
From Congressman Bob Goodlatte --- Restoring Integrity to our Judicial System
Weekly Column: December 10, 2010
It is a rare occasion when the U.S. Congress impeaches a federal judge and removes the accused from the bench. Indeed, only 8 federal judges have been removed from office in our nation’s history. However, when evidence emerges that an individual is abusing his judicial office for his own advantage, the integrity of the judicial system becomes compromised, and the Congress has the duty to investigate the matter and take the appropriate actions to end the abuse and restore confidence in the judicial system.
As the Ranking Member of the House Task Force on Judicial Impeachment I served as one of the two lead prosecutors in the impeachment trial of Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Earlier this week I presented closing arguments before the U.S. Senate in the Porteous case, which was the first Senate impeachment trial of a federal judge since 1989. This was the culmination of months worth of work including the initial investigatory phase, four evidentiary hearings, the presentation of the articles of impeachment by the House Task Force on Judicial Impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee, a vote by the House Judiciary Committee, a unanimous vote for impeachment by the House of Representatives, and the presentation of the articles of impeachment before the Senate Impeachment Trial Committee.
Our case was based on four articles of impeachment, which charged Judge Porteous with intentionally making materially false statements and representations under penalty of perjury, engaging in a corrupt kickback scheme, soliciting and accepting unlawful gifts, deliberately violating court orders and intentionally misleading the Senate during his confirmation proceedings.
Specifically, the four articles of impeachment charged that while on the federal bench, Judge Porteous refused to withdraw as the judge from a case when he had previously engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme with the attorneys representing one of the parties; that he later took thousands of dollars in cash from those same attorneys while the case was pending; that he took gifts from a bail bondsman in exchange for granting favorable bond rates for him and then improperly expunged the records of two of the bail bondsman’s employees, one after he was confirmed by the Senate to be a federal judge; that he lied to a bankruptcy court when he filed for bankruptcy and then violated a bankruptcy court order mandating that he not incur further debt; and that he made materially false statements to the U.S. Senate and FBI during his confirmation process.
Following the presentation of closing arguments the Senate found Judge Porteous guilty on all four articles of impeachment and removed the Judge from the federal bench, making him the eighth federal judge to be removed from office. It is not a pleasant task to remove a federal judge from the bench, yet when a judge abuses his office, it becomes necessary to take the appropriate action in order to restore the confidence of the American people in the judicial system. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power and responsibility to impeach federal judges and the Senate the power to remove the accused from office after a fair and impartial hearing. These are powers that Congress utilizes only in cases involving serious allegations of misconduct. In every step of this lengthy process, we in Congress worked in a non-partisan manner to uncover the truth in order to root out corruption and protect the integrity of our judicial system. With the Senate’s vote to convict Judge Porteous on all four articles of impeachment it sets a new and much-needed standard of conduct of all who are entrusted with public duties.
It is a rare occasion when the U.S. Congress impeaches a federal judge and removes the accused from the bench. Indeed, only 8 federal judges have been removed from office in our nation’s history. However, when evidence emerges that an individual is abusing his judicial office for his own advantage, the integrity of the judicial system becomes compromised, and the Congress has the duty to investigate the matter and take the appropriate actions to end the abuse and restore confidence in the judicial system.
As the Ranking Member of the House Task Force on Judicial Impeachment I served as one of the two lead prosecutors in the impeachment trial of Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Earlier this week I presented closing arguments before the U.S. Senate in the Porteous case, which was the first Senate impeachment trial of a federal judge since 1989. This was the culmination of months worth of work including the initial investigatory phase, four evidentiary hearings, the presentation of the articles of impeachment by the House Task Force on Judicial Impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee, a vote by the House Judiciary Committee, a unanimous vote for impeachment by the House of Representatives, and the presentation of the articles of impeachment before the Senate Impeachment Trial Committee.
Our case was based on four articles of impeachment, which charged Judge Porteous with intentionally making materially false statements and representations under penalty of perjury, engaging in a corrupt kickback scheme, soliciting and accepting unlawful gifts, deliberately violating court orders and intentionally misleading the Senate during his confirmation proceedings.
Specifically, the four articles of impeachment charged that while on the federal bench, Judge Porteous refused to withdraw as the judge from a case when he had previously engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme with the attorneys representing one of the parties; that he later took thousands of dollars in cash from those same attorneys while the case was pending; that he took gifts from a bail bondsman in exchange for granting favorable bond rates for him and then improperly expunged the records of two of the bail bondsman’s employees, one after he was confirmed by the Senate to be a federal judge; that he lied to a bankruptcy court when he filed for bankruptcy and then violated a bankruptcy court order mandating that he not incur further debt; and that he made materially false statements to the U.S. Senate and FBI during his confirmation process.
Following the presentation of closing arguments the Senate found Judge Porteous guilty on all four articles of impeachment and removed the Judge from the federal bench, making him the eighth federal judge to be removed from office. It is not a pleasant task to remove a federal judge from the bench, yet when a judge abuses his office, it becomes necessary to take the appropriate action in order to restore the confidence of the American people in the judicial system. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power and responsibility to impeach federal judges and the Senate the power to remove the accused from office after a fair and impartial hearing. These are powers that Congress utilizes only in cases involving serious allegations of misconduct. In every step of this lengthy process, we in Congress worked in a non-partisan manner to uncover the truth in order to root out corruption and protect the integrity of our judicial system. With the Senate’s vote to convict Judge Porteous on all four articles of impeachment it sets a new and much-needed standard of conduct of all who are entrusted with public duties.
Friday, December 3, 2010
From Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli --- Coming this December: A Healthcare Ruling
From 'The Cuccinelli Compass' A Grassroots Update November 29, 2010
Dear Fellow Virginians and fans of first principles,
This is a very belated Compass regarding the October 18th hearing in our healthcare case, but it took all the way to the Thanksgiving break for me to get enough time to write such a detailed Compass. I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving.
Of course, it goes without saying that you all know that the first Thanksgiving was held in Charles City County, Virginia in 1619, and the second Thanksgiving was held in Massachusetts in 1621. Just thought I should point that out for those readers not blessed enough to be Virginians.
Back to our main topic, the healthcare hearing on October 18th. This hearing was to argue the constitutionality of the individual mandate. It's called a 'summary judgment' hearing, because the judge is going to rule without a trial. The reason for this is that the facts of the case are not in dispute, the only thing to determine is how the law applies to those facts - in this case, the 'law' is the constitution itself.
The two basic facts of the case are the existence of the federal healthcare law and the existence of Virginia's Healthcare Freedom Act (VHFA). These two laws are in direct conflict with one another, because the VHFA says that no Virginian can be ordered to purchase health insurance against his will. This conflicts with the federal healthcare law's mandate that all qualifying Americans must purchase government-approved health insurance.
Normally, under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution - a.k.a. the supremacy clause - a federal law in conflict with a state law would trump that state law. However, the exception to the supremacy clause is when the federal law is unconstitutional, and in this case Virginia is arguing that the federal healthcare law is in fact unconstitutional. So, if we win, at least the individual mandate and all of the insurance components in the federal healthcare law ("the federal law") will fall and the VHFA will stand.
Prior to October 18th, both sides filed approximately 100 pages of briefing. Additionally, there were a large number of amicus briefs filed by third parties (an amicus is a "friend of the court"). The amicus briefs heavily favored our side and were very high quality contributions to the legal discussion. Interestingly, despite the pounding we've taken from the academic world, we had 15 law professors supporting our position to only 3 for the federal government.
The hearing lasted a bit over two-and-a-half hours and featured what lawyers would call a "hot bench." That means the judge was engaged and asking lots of aggressive questions. He was clearly very well prepared and he challenged both sides on their legal theories.
I will point out a few things that happened during the hearing that are funny (to me anyway...) or that show how this administration approaches this case.
Introductions and Federalism
First, as soon as the lawyer for the federal government got up, he introduced himself: "Good morning your honor. Ian Gershengorn for the government, err...., I mean the federal government..."
What's peculiar about this? I suspect that Mr. Gershengorn has never in his life faced off against a government before; however, that's exactly what was happening in that courtroom. The federal government was defending itself against the legal assault of the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Remember that one of the elements of the design of the founding fathers was what we call "federalism." Most people are familiar with the idea of 'checks and balances' in our government, and we usually think of the division of power between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. But there is another division of power within our constitutional system, and that is the division between the federal government and the state governments.
Virginia's own James Madison wrote extensively in the Federalist Papers about how the states would have extensive authority preserved from the federal government to be exercised by the states themselves or reserved to their citizens. When contests about those constitutional boundaries arise, they are to be fought out in our courts, and that is exactly what we are doing in Virginia.
We are fulfilling the founders' expectation of states, that is, because the federal government is overstepping its constitutional authority, the founders expected the states to push the federal government back inside its proper constitutional boundaries, and we are doing that in this case.
I have no doubt which side of this case every single founding father would be on - Virginia's!
Tough Questioning
Very early in the federal government's presentation, the judge asked "if this is constitutional, what limits are there on federal power?" The feds' lawyer never really answered this question. How could he? The judge went on to ask, "if this is constitutional, what's to keep the federal government from telling me what car to buy, to eat asparagus, or to join a gym?" The feds' lawyer's answer was that 'healthcare is different' from everything else.
His reasoning for this was their presumption that everyone will use healthcare at some point. However, this doesn't seem like much of a limiting constitutional principle... What about food? Transportation? Housing? Clothing?
The Statute is Unprecedented... to Everyone but the Federal Government
This administration appears to be the only entity across the country arguing that there's nothing out of the ordinary about the federal law. Even judges ruling favorably to the feds are saying that the federal law is unprecedented, yet the feds in all their briefs keep insisting 'nope, nope, nothing unusual here... nothing to see, move along...' But no one is buying that - no one.
Activity or Inactivity?
One way of thinking about what the feds are trying to do is that in an effort to regulate interstate commerce, they are compelling us all into commerce, i.e., ordering us to buy their mandated health insurance. Virginia's position is that those who decide not to buy health insurance aren't taking any action at all that is related to commerce. All the case law related to the commerce clause addresses people voluntarily engaging in economic activity.
Well, if you're not doing anything (i.e., not buying insurance), there's no activity to regulate. Put differently, you are inactive.
The feds' addressed this argument saying "the appearance of inactivity is a mere illusion."
No, seriously, that's what he said!
So, let me get this straight - if you do something, your activity can be regulated by the federal government, and if you do nothing, your so-called inactivity can be regulated by the federal government... so, what can NOT be regulated by the federal government? Nothing, at least according to the logic of the federal government.
The feds are trying to convert the decision to do nothing into an 'action' or 'activity' that fits within already-existing case law on the commerce clause. This is just one of the leaps of language and logic necessary for the feds' arguments to prevail.
More Problems With the Dictionary
Another good one was when discussing the "penalty" in section 1501(b). The "penalty" is called a "penalty" in the law, i.e., that's what Congress calls it. The "penalty" is a monetary fine you must pay if you fail to buy the mandated, government-approved health insurance. However, according to the federal government "there is nothing punitive about section 1501(b)."
Really? Yes, you read that right. According to your federal government there is nothing punitive about having to pay a penalty.
Again, if we could just get rid of dictionaries and logic, the feds would be able to make all of its arguments without impediments. Oh well, pesky dictionaries...
Constitutional Presumptuousness
Another of my 'favorite' arguments the feds made during the hearing was that "there's no constitutional right to be left alone." While at some level this is technically true, it suggests a very disturbing view of federal government power.
Remember, the Constitution was supposed to establish a limited federal government of only enumerated powers. Put differently, the states and citizens can do whatever they want under the Constitution (I exaggerate of course), but the federal government is supposed to have only limited powers. But now we have a federal government that says that you have no right to be left alone, which suggests that they think they can reach anything you might do (or not do). That doesn't sound very limited to me!
It turns the initial presumptions of the founding fathers upside down. Instead of a restrained government of limited powers, it suggests an all-reaching government with any powers it chooses to exercise. The statement by the lawyer for the feds is a real peek into how this administration views federal power in general and suggests that there is very little (if anything) that they don't think they can reach using that federal power.
Such a view would be antithetical to the founding fathers. It represents the realization of many of the worst fears of James Madison, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson - to name but a few.
What's Next?
The judge said that he would rule by the end of the year, so look for that some time in December.
It is not unreasonable to think that if we lose this case, it will be the end of federalism as we have known it for over 222 years. Thus, the important thing in the ruling is not so much the remedy, but first and foremost the question of constitutionality. The remedy could change when we get to the Supreme Court, but the remedy is secondary to protecting the outer boundaries of the constitution.
I believe that some of the federal government's arguments in court clearly reflect an attitude that the constitution is almost unlimited in its 'flexibility,' which, if true, would be a radical departure from what the founding fathers thought they had established.
Regardless of the outcome, we're preparing to take a pounding from the liberal media and blogs, so help us fight back! Unsubscribe from anti-constitutionally biased newspapers, write letters to the editor to your local weeklies, etc.
We shall see how things go in December!
Sincerely,
Ken Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General of Virginia
Dear Fellow Virginians and fans of first principles,
This is a very belated Compass regarding the October 18th hearing in our healthcare case, but it took all the way to the Thanksgiving break for me to get enough time to write such a detailed Compass. I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving.
Of course, it goes without saying that you all know that the first Thanksgiving was held in Charles City County, Virginia in 1619, and the second Thanksgiving was held in Massachusetts in 1621. Just thought I should point that out for those readers not blessed enough to be Virginians.
Back to our main topic, the healthcare hearing on October 18th. This hearing was to argue the constitutionality of the individual mandate. It's called a 'summary judgment' hearing, because the judge is going to rule without a trial. The reason for this is that the facts of the case are not in dispute, the only thing to determine is how the law applies to those facts - in this case, the 'law' is the constitution itself.
The two basic facts of the case are the existence of the federal healthcare law and the existence of Virginia's Healthcare Freedom Act (VHFA). These two laws are in direct conflict with one another, because the VHFA says that no Virginian can be ordered to purchase health insurance against his will. This conflicts with the federal healthcare law's mandate that all qualifying Americans must purchase government-approved health insurance.
Normally, under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution - a.k.a. the supremacy clause - a federal law in conflict with a state law would trump that state law. However, the exception to the supremacy clause is when the federal law is unconstitutional, and in this case Virginia is arguing that the federal healthcare law is in fact unconstitutional. So, if we win, at least the individual mandate and all of the insurance components in the federal healthcare law ("the federal law") will fall and the VHFA will stand.
Prior to October 18th, both sides filed approximately 100 pages of briefing. Additionally, there were a large number of amicus briefs filed by third parties (an amicus is a "friend of the court"). The amicus briefs heavily favored our side and were very high quality contributions to the legal discussion. Interestingly, despite the pounding we've taken from the academic world, we had 15 law professors supporting our position to only 3 for the federal government.
The hearing lasted a bit over two-and-a-half hours and featured what lawyers would call a "hot bench." That means the judge was engaged and asking lots of aggressive questions. He was clearly very well prepared and he challenged both sides on their legal theories.
I will point out a few things that happened during the hearing that are funny (to me anyway...) or that show how this administration approaches this case.
Introductions and Federalism
First, as soon as the lawyer for the federal government got up, he introduced himself: "Good morning your honor. Ian Gershengorn for the government, err...., I mean the federal government..."
What's peculiar about this? I suspect that Mr. Gershengorn has never in his life faced off against a government before; however, that's exactly what was happening in that courtroom. The federal government was defending itself against the legal assault of the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Remember that one of the elements of the design of the founding fathers was what we call "federalism." Most people are familiar with the idea of 'checks and balances' in our government, and we usually think of the division of power between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. But there is another division of power within our constitutional system, and that is the division between the federal government and the state governments.
Virginia's own James Madison wrote extensively in the Federalist Papers about how the states would have extensive authority preserved from the federal government to be exercised by the states themselves or reserved to their citizens. When contests about those constitutional boundaries arise, they are to be fought out in our courts, and that is exactly what we are doing in Virginia.
We are fulfilling the founders' expectation of states, that is, because the federal government is overstepping its constitutional authority, the founders expected the states to push the federal government back inside its proper constitutional boundaries, and we are doing that in this case.
I have no doubt which side of this case every single founding father would be on - Virginia's!
Tough Questioning
Very early in the federal government's presentation, the judge asked "if this is constitutional, what limits are there on federal power?" The feds' lawyer never really answered this question. How could he? The judge went on to ask, "if this is constitutional, what's to keep the federal government from telling me what car to buy, to eat asparagus, or to join a gym?" The feds' lawyer's answer was that 'healthcare is different' from everything else.
His reasoning for this was their presumption that everyone will use healthcare at some point. However, this doesn't seem like much of a limiting constitutional principle... What about food? Transportation? Housing? Clothing?
The Statute is Unprecedented... to Everyone but the Federal Government
This administration appears to be the only entity across the country arguing that there's nothing out of the ordinary about the federal law. Even judges ruling favorably to the feds are saying that the federal law is unprecedented, yet the feds in all their briefs keep insisting 'nope, nope, nothing unusual here... nothing to see, move along...' But no one is buying that - no one.
Activity or Inactivity?
One way of thinking about what the feds are trying to do is that in an effort to regulate interstate commerce, they are compelling us all into commerce, i.e., ordering us to buy their mandated health insurance. Virginia's position is that those who decide not to buy health insurance aren't taking any action at all that is related to commerce. All the case law related to the commerce clause addresses people voluntarily engaging in economic activity.
Well, if you're not doing anything (i.e., not buying insurance), there's no activity to regulate. Put differently, you are inactive.
The feds' addressed this argument saying "the appearance of inactivity is a mere illusion."
No, seriously, that's what he said!
So, let me get this straight - if you do something, your activity can be regulated by the federal government, and if you do nothing, your so-called inactivity can be regulated by the federal government... so, what can NOT be regulated by the federal government? Nothing, at least according to the logic of the federal government.
The feds are trying to convert the decision to do nothing into an 'action' or 'activity' that fits within already-existing case law on the commerce clause. This is just one of the leaps of language and logic necessary for the feds' arguments to prevail.
More Problems With the Dictionary
Another good one was when discussing the "penalty" in section 1501(b). The "penalty" is called a "penalty" in the law, i.e., that's what Congress calls it. The "penalty" is a monetary fine you must pay if you fail to buy the mandated, government-approved health insurance. However, according to the federal government "there is nothing punitive about section 1501(b)."
Really? Yes, you read that right. According to your federal government there is nothing punitive about having to pay a penalty.
Again, if we could just get rid of dictionaries and logic, the feds would be able to make all of its arguments without impediments. Oh well, pesky dictionaries...
Constitutional Presumptuousness
Another of my 'favorite' arguments the feds made during the hearing was that "there's no constitutional right to be left alone." While at some level this is technically true, it suggests a very disturbing view of federal government power.
Remember, the Constitution was supposed to establish a limited federal government of only enumerated powers. Put differently, the states and citizens can do whatever they want under the Constitution (I exaggerate of course), but the federal government is supposed to have only limited powers. But now we have a federal government that says that you have no right to be left alone, which suggests that they think they can reach anything you might do (or not do). That doesn't sound very limited to me!
It turns the initial presumptions of the founding fathers upside down. Instead of a restrained government of limited powers, it suggests an all-reaching government with any powers it chooses to exercise. The statement by the lawyer for the feds is a real peek into how this administration views federal power in general and suggests that there is very little (if anything) that they don't think they can reach using that federal power.
Such a view would be antithetical to the founding fathers. It represents the realization of many of the worst fears of James Madison, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson - to name but a few.
What's Next?
The judge said that he would rule by the end of the year, so look for that some time in December.
It is not unreasonable to think that if we lose this case, it will be the end of federalism as we have known it for over 222 years. Thus, the important thing in the ruling is not so much the remedy, but first and foremost the question of constitutionality. The remedy could change when we get to the Supreme Court, but the remedy is secondary to protecting the outer boundaries of the constitution.
I believe that some of the federal government's arguments in court clearly reflect an attitude that the constitution is almost unlimited in its 'flexibility,' which, if true, would be a radical departure from what the founding fathers thought they had established.
Regardless of the outcome, we're preparing to take a pounding from the liberal media and blogs, so help us fight back! Unsubscribe from anti-constitutionally biased newspapers, write letters to the editor to your local weeklies, etc.
We shall see how things go in December!
Sincerely,
Ken Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General of Virginia
From Congressman Bob Goodlatte --- Tax Increases are Not the Way to Rebuild our Economy
Weekly Column: December 3, 2010
The American people continue to face one of the most challenging times in our nation’s history. The latest unemployment numbers mark the 16th consecutive month that our nation’s unemployment rate has been at or above 9.5 percent – the longest period since the Great Depression. Unfortunately, these are numbers that the American people are all too familiar with and yet the Democrats in Congress continue to pursue an agenda that will further threaten American job creators and families.
This week House Democrats pushed through legislation, without my support, which includes massive tax increases on American families and small businesses who are already struggling to make ends meet. While the legislation would make permanent some of the tax relief provisions from the 2001 and 2003 tax laws such as the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, it allows other existing tax cuts to expire, resulting in tax increases on January 1, 2011.
While it is common-sense that you should not raise taxes on employers at a time when unemployment is so high, this point seems lost on the Democrats in Congress who are determined to raise taxes on America’s job creators. Small business owners across the country want to invest in their firms and hire new workers, but instead they are bracing for costly new tax increases. It’s been estimated that these tax increases will hit 750,000 small business owners who employ more than 25 percent of our total workforce.
Additionally, American families will be hit hard with the reinstatement of the estate tax, also known as the death tax. The Democrats’ legislation allows the death tax relief from the 2001 tax law to expire which means that the tax will return with a 55% tax rate which will penalize many small business owners including farmers. These folks have spent a lifetime building a business and creating jobs only to have their families hit with confiscatory taxes often requiring the family business or farm to be sold.
The only way to help rebuild our struggling economy is to ensure American families and small businesses are not confronted with these oppressive tax hikes. For this reason I am a strong supporter of the Tax Relief Certainty Act, which would permanently extend the current tax rates, provide a permanent repeal of the death tax and implement permanent relief for the Alternative Minimum Tax.
The American people are demanding that Congress abandon its job-killing, tax-and-spend policies and instead focus on real solutions that will create jobs, putting Americans back to work and restore economic prosperity to our nation. If Democrats are serious about job creation, there's one clear way forward, and that's for us to come together in a bipartisan way and pass legislation immediately that cuts spending and stops all of the approaching tax hikes.
Congress must focus on passing legislation which puts money back into the hands of those who can really turn our economy around – the American people and small businesses.
The American people continue to face one of the most challenging times in our nation’s history. The latest unemployment numbers mark the 16th consecutive month that our nation’s unemployment rate has been at or above 9.5 percent – the longest period since the Great Depression. Unfortunately, these are numbers that the American people are all too familiar with and yet the Democrats in Congress continue to pursue an agenda that will further threaten American job creators and families.
This week House Democrats pushed through legislation, without my support, which includes massive tax increases on American families and small businesses who are already struggling to make ends meet. While the legislation would make permanent some of the tax relief provisions from the 2001 and 2003 tax laws such as the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, it allows other existing tax cuts to expire, resulting in tax increases on January 1, 2011.
While it is common-sense that you should not raise taxes on employers at a time when unemployment is so high, this point seems lost on the Democrats in Congress who are determined to raise taxes on America’s job creators. Small business owners across the country want to invest in their firms and hire new workers, but instead they are bracing for costly new tax increases. It’s been estimated that these tax increases will hit 750,000 small business owners who employ more than 25 percent of our total workforce.
Additionally, American families will be hit hard with the reinstatement of the estate tax, also known as the death tax. The Democrats’ legislation allows the death tax relief from the 2001 tax law to expire which means that the tax will return with a 55% tax rate which will penalize many small business owners including farmers. These folks have spent a lifetime building a business and creating jobs only to have their families hit with confiscatory taxes often requiring the family business or farm to be sold.
The only way to help rebuild our struggling economy is to ensure American families and small businesses are not confronted with these oppressive tax hikes. For this reason I am a strong supporter of the Tax Relief Certainty Act, which would permanently extend the current tax rates, provide a permanent repeal of the death tax and implement permanent relief for the Alternative Minimum Tax.
The American people are demanding that Congress abandon its job-killing, tax-and-spend policies and instead focus on real solutions that will create jobs, putting Americans back to work and restore economic prosperity to our nation. If Democrats are serious about job creation, there's one clear way forward, and that's for us to come together in a bipartisan way and pass legislation immediately that cuts spending and stops all of the approaching tax hikes.
Congress must focus on passing legislation which puts money back into the hands of those who can really turn our economy around – the American people and small businesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
