FamilyFoundationBlog.com

Our string of providing complete, start-to-finish coverage of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s health care lawsuit news conferences took a bit of a hit yesterday because of some technical glitches. But we do have most of it and still more than anyone else has posted. So, here it is in two video blocks, joined in progress after Mr. Cucinelli’s opening remarks before taking questions (click here for a transcript of the entire statement, which is a good read). To make up for the glitch, we have sound bytes from the opening statement via Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier (as well as the subsequent panel discussion). In addition, so you can get the virtual effect of being at all the festivities yesterday, you can click on the links below to hear the oral arguments of the Liberty University and Virginia cases against the federal government and then watch the post-hearing news conference in the exact order in which they occurred.

Liberty University v. Timothy Geithner (1:24)

Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius (:49)

It’s not about health care. It’s about liberty.

Today the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals heard two cases challenging the constitutionality of the federal health care law. One, Liberty University v. Timothy Geithner, was on appeal by the college, which lost its case in Federal District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The other, and more well known case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius, was on appeal by the federal government because Judge Henry Hudson in the Eastern District of Virginia, ruled the law unconstitutional late last year. The Fourth Circuit includes all of Virginia (as well as other states) so both appeals were heard at its courthouse in Richmond. As appeals are heard by three judge panels and since one panel within a circuit court cannot overrule another, the same panel heard both cases. Selection of the three judges, according to the court, was done at random by a computer system. Its picks were Judges Dianna Gribbon Motz, Andre Davis and James Wynn, Jr. — two appointed by President Barack Obama and one by President Bill Clinton.

Mathew Staver, Dean of the Liberty University School of Law and lead attorney for Liberty Counsel; Duncan Getchell, Solicitor General for the Commonwealth; and Acting United States Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued the cases. The judges heard the Liberty case first and despite a straightaway-launch into skeptical questioning of Mr. Staver, they were at least as difficult on Mr. Katyal. It made for a compelling debate, so much so that the scheduled 40 minute hearing was extended by Judge Motz to 1:24. It was gripping even for experienced court observers, not to mention for someone, like me, who has limited in-person exposure to high level jurisprudence.

Since it covered most of the merits of the cases in the first one (although the cases are being argued on slightly different grounds) the Virginia case only went nine minutes beyond the 40 scheduled, with most of the questioning on Virginia’s standing to even bring the case. Interestingly, Mr. Katyal said Liberty had standing, even though that was partly the grounds for its loss, because as individuals and employers it had grounds to question the employer and individual mandates enforced by the law. Although the feds lost its motion to dismiss against Virginia, again argued that line of attack. Mr. Katyal alleged Virginia passed the Health Care Freedom Act in order to have standing to challenge the health care law and that if allowed to stand, any state could pass any law any time to challenge any federal law from which it wishes to be exempt. This clearly frustrated Mr. Getchell who argued it is an unquestioned right for states to pass laws. Unfortunately, Judge Davis would have none of this and clearly blustered partisan talking points rather than judicial prowess.

On the whole, the three judges, especially Motz and Wynn, seemed open minded. Judge Motz especially perked up each time one of the three lawyers cited the Comstock case, in which her opinion came down on the limited government side. Judge Wynn clearly had problems with several instances of federal twisted logic. For example, Mr. Katyal said the words in the law don’t mean what they say in the penalty provision because it is a tax even though the word tax is never mentioned in the law; and that the law does not regulate inactivity because deciding not to purchase insurance is an activity and that forcing people to buy insurance only is an “upfront payment” for a service it will use eventually. So, there was at least an appearance that the judges, despite their political pedigree, were open minded. (Prediction: 2-1 for ObamaCare.)

But here’s a theory: Does Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli want to win at this stage? If he does, the feds surely will appeal to the entire Fourth Circuit. That will delay a trip to D.C. for a date with the Supremes by months, even a year. If Virginia loses, he can appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, where its jurisprudence may well favor voiding the law. Remember, he attempted an extraordinary expedited appeal there and was greeted with some sympathy. He wants to get there as soon as possible. So, Virginia is in a good position: If it wins, with at least two Democrat appointed judges siding with it, the feds don’t have much chance en banc, either. One caveat: If Virginia loses on the question of standing, he would have to appeal that first, in essence to win permission just to continue the suit. That’s what was dangerous about the direction of the argument in the Virginia hearing. Ironically, it could be the Liberty lawsuit that could win the day, based on the intensity and skepticism of the questions to Mr. Katyal. We shall see.

Now, here’s a treat. Below is are links to the audio of each case. Click and enjoy your online legal education. Its worth the listen.

Liberty University v. Timothy Geithner (1:24)

Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius (:49)

Wednesday morning a unique, and what will be looked back upon as a historic, event took place at Mr. Jefferson’s capitol. Citizens from across Virginia witnessed many of their state lawmakers officially form the Virginia Legislative Prayer Caucus. The VLPC is an outgrowth of the Congressional Prayer Caucus in Washington, D.C. founded by Virginia’s Fourth District U.S. Representative Randy Forbes. That caucus has been instrumental in bringing legislators together under the common denomination of prayer and devotion to God to guide them in their decision making. Now, members of several state legislatures are forming their own. Virginia’s is among the first.

Several hundred people joined Governor Bob McDonnell, Lt. Governor Bill Bolling, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and several senators and delegates to call on the Lord to heal our land and bless the Commonwealth of Virginia. In addition to the three statewide officials, speakers included Senator Phillip Puckett (D-38, Tazewell), who led a prayer; caucus co-chairmen Delegate John Cosgrove (R-78, Chesapeake) and Senator Jeff McWaters (R-8, Virginia Beach); and Congressman Mike McIntyre (R-N.C.), a co-founder of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, who encouraged prayer for all those in authority as we are commanded in I Timothy 2:1,2. Congressman Forbes was scheduled to speak but could not attend because of a last minute Armed Services sub-committee meeting which he chairs. Instead, his wife Shirley, read his prepared remarks.

The event concluded with the announcement of each VLPC member’s name as he or she approached a desk on the capitol’s portico and signed the “Call to Prayer for Virginia” proclamation. The charter members include members of both parties with at least a half-dozen of them Democrats. Those in attendance also had the opportunity to sign their names to a replica versions. Virginia is the third state to create a Legislative Prayer Caucus, following Mississippi and Kentucky. Several other state legislatures are currently in the process of forming similar prayer caucuses.

With all a world seemingly aflame and in shambles by war, natural disaster and financial and economic turmoil, it was a refreshing event to see the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and numerous members of the legislative body take public pride in their faith and devotion to prayer, much as our founders did 235 years ago in the midst of a war for independence going wrong. Still, in the Declaration of Independence they noted their “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.”

Governor McDonnell, Lt. Governor Bolling and Attorney General Cuccinelli are the first to sign the Virginia Legislative Prayer Caucus’ Call To Prayer.

Within the last hour, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced that he has formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for an expedited hearing on Virginia’s challenge to the new federal health care law. This is the news release from his office:

RICHMOND (February 3, 2011) — Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced today that Virginia will file a petition to ask the United States Supreme Court to take Virginia’s health care lawsuit now, as opposed to waiting for the case to first be decided by the court of appeals. The Petition for Certiorari Before Judgment in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth v. Sebelius will be filed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules of the United States Supreme Court.

“Given the uncertainty caused by the divergent rulings of the various district courts on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we feel that it is necessary to seek resolution of this issue as quickly as possible,” said Cuccinelli. “Currently, state governments and private businesses are being forced to expend enormous amounts of resources to prepare to implement a law that, in the end, may be declared unconstitutional. Regardless of whether you believe the law is constitutional or not, we should all agree that a prompt resolution of this issue is in everyone’s best interest.”

Normally, appeals of decisions of United States district courts are first heard in the federal courts of appeals. But Rule 11 provides that an immediate review in the U.S. Supreme Court is permissible “upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in” the Supreme Court.

Cuccinelli noted, “Rule 11 is the exception to the general rule, but this case and the other cases challenging the constitutionality of PPACA are truly exceptional in their own right. There are a number of suits pending throughout the country challenging the constitutionality of PPACA. Presently, 28 states have filed suits challenging the authority of Congress to enact this law. That, in and of itself, is exceptional and makes the cases excellent candidates for immediate review in the Supreme Court.

“We did not make this decision lightly. Given his unique responsibilities to fund and implement PPACA as Governor of Virginia, Governor McDonnell is particularly concerned about the possibility of wasting precious and strained taxpayer dollars preparing for a law that may well be struck down. Recognizing the tremendous amount of time and resources that are and will be expended to implement a law that two federal judges have ruled contains unconstitutional provisions, Lieutenant Governor Bolling and Speaker Howell have joined the governor in requesting that my office seek expedited review. Additionally, I have been encouraged to attempt to expedite this case by Democrats as well as Republicans in Virginia’s General Assembly, and of course, the bipartisan passage of Virginia’s Health Care Freedom Act last year was the very first step in this entire process here in the commonwealth.

“Despite the fact that the Department of Justice has not agreed to join in a Rule 11 motion, in a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to set an expedited schedule for its appeal of Virginia’s district court victory, the Justice Department stated, ‘The constitutionality of [PPACA] has public policy implications of the highest magnitude.’ In other words, according to the Justice Department itself, a case cannot have public policy implications that are more important than this case. We agree and feel that reinforces the fitting nature of our request for immediate review in the Supreme Court,” Cuccinelli said.

The Petition for Certiorari and Appendix are currently being assembled by the legal printer for the attorney general and will be filed with the court as soon as is practicable.

Today, a second federal judge in as many months ruled Obamacare unconstitutional (see Avik Roy at The Apothecary blog at Forbes.com). That’s two lawsuits involving 27 states against the federal government’s healthcare takeover and two rulings that it is unconsitutional.

Perhaps the most devastating aspect of Judge Roger Vinson’s decision is that he ruled the entire law is unconstitutional because the offending portion — the individual mandate that forces Americans, for the first time in history, to buy a product — is not severable. In other words, when the law was drafted, in its legislative sloppiness, the U.S. Senate did not include a clause that declared if any part of it was ruled unconstitutional, the remainder of the law remained in effect. Even Judge Henry Hudson, of the Eastern District of Virginia, who was the first judge to rule Obamacare unconstitutional, refused to go that far. But Judge Vinson did not enjoin the law (see 21StateLawSuit.com), either.

Much like Judge Hudson’s opinion, however, Judge Vinson said the law goes well beyond the limits of the Commerce Clause and any High Court precedent. He wrote:

The individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.

Here is Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s reaction: 

I am heartened by the fact that another federal judge has found that the individual mandate forcing citizens to buy private health insurance is unconstitutional. The judge also found that the individual mandate could not be severed from the remainder of the law, so he declared the entire act invalid.

Constitutional principles have scored another victory today. Liberty has scored another victory today.

I congratulate Florida Attorney General Bondi, former Attorney General McCollum, and the attorneys general and governors who joined the Florida suit, on their victory.

Here is Governor Bob McDonnell’s reaction:

Judge Vinson’s ruling is yet another strike against the individual mandate specifically, and the entire federal health care law generally. For the second time in as many months, a federal judge has found that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by mandating that citizens of this nation purchase a commercial product or else face a penalty.

Judge Henry Hudson reached a similar conclusion in his December ruling on the Commonwealth’s challenge to the Act. However, Judge Vinson’s decision goes one step further. The Judge also ruled that the individual mandate component is not severable from the overall Act in which it is contained, meaning that this one unconstitutional provision renders the entire bill void.

I agree with both Judge Vinson and Judge Hudson that the individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. However, this matter is far from settled. Today’s decision adds to the growing uncertainty surrounding federal health care reform. That uncertainty is leaving states, businesses and individuals unable to properly plan for 2014 and the scheduled implementation of this new law.

For this reason I reiterate my request that the Department of Justice join with the states to request fast tracking the challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the final decision regarding its constitutionality will ultimately be determined. All parties involved, no matter where they stand on this measure, should support moving this issue to its final stage, and bringing finality to a complicated matter that will have an impact on every state, employer and citizen of this nation.

In a bit of breaking news, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to an expedited hearing of the federal government’s appeal of Virginia’s legal challenge to the federal health care law. Here’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s news release:

RICHMOND (January 26, 2011) — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today granted a joint motion from Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and the federal government to expedite the hearing of Virginia’s suit against the federal health care law. The case is tentatively scheduled for hearing sometime between May 10 and 13. This replaces a briefing order previously issued by the court.

“Right now, there is a great deal of uncertainty for states, individuals, and businesses. Major decisions are already being made and money is already being spent to comply with a law that may not be around two years from now. We need this suit resolved as quickly as possible, for the good of our citizens and our economy,” said Cuccinelli.

Cuccinelli is still weighing whether or not to request that the U.S. Supreme Court take the case directly and skip the Fourth Circuit altogether.

The court ordered the following briefing schedule:

Opening briefs due February 28

Response briefs due March 28

Reply briefs due April 11

More information on the health care lawsuit can be found at the attorney general’s health care archive, here. Virginia won round one late last year when Federal Judge Henry Hudson of the Eastern District of Virginia declared the statute unconstitutional. The Obama administration’s appeal is of that decision.

This is the second in a series about key issues facing this year’s General Assembly. Issue One, Life Defined And Protected, was posted yesterday.

Last General Assembly session, just before Congressional liberals rammed through their government-run health insurance overhaul (see ObamaCare411.com), Virginia responded to the mood of its citizens and passed the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act. Once the federal health insurance changes were signed into law, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli quickly filed suit in federal court to defend (see video) the constitutional rights of Virginians. 

Legal challenges aside, ObamaCare is scheduled to be fully implemented by 2014. While we hope Virginia’s lawsuit will succeed, no one can, with anything close to certainty, count on the courts to invalidate the law or on Congress to repeal it (see 21StateLawSuit.com). 

We especially are concerned about the provisions of the law that allow for abortion funding. That’s because ObamaCare puts states in charge of their own health insurance exchanges for individuals and small businesses. If enacted today, Virginia could potentially include, in its exchange, plans that cover elective abortion. In fact, Pennsylvania and Maryland already have moved to include such plans (see CNSNews.com). Without intervention by the General Assembly, pro-family citizens opposed to abortion would be mandated to fund this unethical destruction of human life. Virginians may be divided on the issue of abortion, but a vast majority are opposed to publicly funding it with their hard earned tax dollars.

However, there is a clause in the federal health insurance plan that allows states to opt out of abortion funding in their state run exchanges. Such action also fulfills the executive order signed by President Obama that theoretically protects Americans from funding abortion through the health insurance scheme. According to Americans United for Life, a total of 25 states, including Virginia, have either opted out or have plans to introduce legislation with the hope of preventing health insurance companies in the exchange from providing abortion coverage. 

Toward that end, The Family Foundation is supporting legislation introduced this session by Senator Mark Obenshain (R-26, Harrisonburg) and Delegate Ben Cline (R-24, Rockbridge) that would prevent insurance plans in the Virginia exchange from providing abortion coverage. Especially in today’s financial climate, it is unconscionable to mandate Virginians to underwrite a publicly unsupported issue resulting in the destruction of human life.

What were liberals saying about Virginia’s lawsuit against the federal government’s health care law — that it was a waste of time, that it had no chance, that it was . . . frivolous? Client Number 9 spoke for them all and said “no judge or legal scholar” thought Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli had a snowball’s chance in August. The AG told him and all of critics they were wrong. Since March he has taken undignified shots from radical leftists — many granted cover as mainstream by, of course, the mainstream media and Washington elitists — and on Monday he was vindicated.

As expected, there’s been a media crush on the Attorney General Cuccinelli, with the suddenly awaken press wanting to know what this case was all about after all. One telling interview is below, with long-time Washington media stalwart Bob Schieffer of CBS News, who admitted that Mr. Cuccinelli gave him the best explanation of the issue than anyone has ever given him. Amazing! Maybe that conservative whack job really does know the constitution! Bob, you need to get out more. The issue isn’t that complex and smart people don’t exclusively live in D.C. 

Below, are two more interviews, one each with Attorney General Cuccinelli and Governor Bob McDonnell on Fox News Channel with Greta Van Susteran. In addition to the video, here is a great interview the attorney general gave to National Review Online.

Although it is the first of many court decisions he faces, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli this week became the first person to successfully challenge President Obama’s federal health insurance scheme. U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled a key component of the plan — the “individual mandate” — unconstitutional.

In his opinion, Judge Hudson concluded:

Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter a stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market. In doing so, enactment of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I.

He added that the individual mandate “is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.” That letter meaning this: “Regulate” during the days of the constitution’s adoption meant, “to make regular.” Far from taking over entire industries, the federal government instead was to ensure that states didn’t discriminate against businesses from one state to the advantage of one from another.

The Obama administration argued that the constitution’s Commerce Clause gives the government broad authority to order Americans to purchase health insurance because not doing so adversely affects commerce. Of course, this unprecedented attempt to force Americans to purchase a product was predicated on labeling inactivity (not buying insurance) “interstate commerce.” Stranger than fiction, we know.

While the Obama administration will appeal Monday’s decision to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Attorney General Cuccinelli would prefer an expedited appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. He was in talks with the Department of Justice about a joint motion to that affect, but it now appears DOJ wants no part of it (better to delay until more and more parts of the law go into affect). However, Mr. Cuccinelli told Fox New Channel’s Greta Van Susteren Monday night he may go forward on that by himself and also may appeal Judge Hudson’s refusal to place an injunction on the health care law (see video). He has 30 days from last Monday to make that appeal. Regardless of how or when, ultimately Obamacare’s fate will be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

While there are dozens of reasons to oppose Obamacare (see Obamacare411), the provision that requires otherwise free Americans to purchase health insurance or face penalties is the most egregious — but it is also the financial linchpin of the entire law. Without the mandate, much of the rest of the law is untenable.

Earlier this year, The Family Foundation supported the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, the basis for the Commonwealth’s lawsuit against the federal government. It protects Virginia citizens from being compelled to buy insurance against their will. We applaud the Attorney General and his staff for their commitment to protecting the freedom of Virginians. For a great perspective on the hearing and Judge Hudson’s ruling, view Mr. Cuccinelli’s post-decision news conference (click here). We are the only news or Internet site that recorded and posted the entire news conference.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli just sent this e-mail to supporters:

As I told you earlier today, Virginia won the first round of the constitutional fight over the federal health care law. I also told you I’d get back to you with more details later in the day, and I’m keeping my promise.

I will tell you up front that I will also go into still more detail later this week — when time allows.

Arguments and Outcomes

There were two basic arguments in this case.

First, Virginia argued that the individual mandate was beyond the power of Congress and the President to impose under the Constitution. Specifically, Congress claimed that their regulatory power under the Commerce Clause allowed them to order you to buy their government-approved health insurance, even if you decide not to buy health insurance.

The judge ruled that the federal government does not have the power to compel you to buy health insurance as part of its attempt to regulate the entire field of health care and health insurance. Thus, Virginia won this argument.

Second, the federal government advanced a ‘fallback’ argument in case it lost on its commerce clause argument. The feds’ fallback argument was that the financial penalty you have to pay if you don’t buy the government mandated health insurance is a tax.

This may sound like an odd argument from a political standpoint — usually they say everything is NOT a tax (in fact, they argued the penalty was not a tax while they were trying to get the bill passed); however, they changed position after the bill became law to try and save the bill. What they were trying to do was to get the courts to agree that because the penalty would presumably raise some revenue, it was therefore a ‘tax’ under the taxing and spending for the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution.

No judge in the country has bought this argument, and Judge Hudson was no exception. He ruled that the taxing power of Congress does not save the bill, because the penalty for not buying the mandated health insurance is not a tax.

The federal government only had to win on either of these two arguments, while Virginia needed to win both to prevail, and we won both!

What’s Next?

Certainly the federal government will appeal their loss in the district court to the 4th circuit court of appeals within the next 30 days. And whichever side loses in the 4th circuit will certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. And no one has any serious doubts that ultimately the constitutionality of the individual mandate will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

That could take approximately (very rough approximation) two years. We are discussing with the Department of Justice accelerating the case, and those discussions have been very cordial thus far. More on that later.

Conclusion

Today is a great day for the Constitution. Today the Constitution has been protected from the federal government, and remember, an important reason for the constitution in the first place was to limit the power of the federal government.

Today is also a day of a small degree of vindication. When we first filed suit, the screeching of the liberals was deafening. Everything from accusing us of playing politics instead of practicing law, to filing what they called a ‘frivolous’ lawsuit.

I want you to know, that our team makes decisions based on the Constitution and the laws. Period. We deal with the consequences of our decisions separately, but first and foremost we have been and will continue to be true to the Constitution and laws of the United States and Virginia, regardless of whether it’s easy or hard in any particular case.