So Bill Has Decided Not To Run

That was a good decision, because Virginia deserves better. The last two paragraphs of his press release are why he would not have made a good Governor. Wishing the dirt bag con artist McCauliffe good luck might sound like the high road, but failing to endorse AG Ken Cuccinelli says a lot about Bollings attitude. Bitter and jealous.

“I wish Mr. McAuliffe and Mr. Cuccinelli well as they begin their campaigns.  One of these two candidates will have the responsibility of leading Virginia into the future.  This is a tremendous responsibility and it should not be taken lightly.  I encourage them to run campaigns that are worthy of Virginia; campaigns that focus on the big issues facing our state and offer a positive vision for the future of Virginia.  That's the kind of Governor the people of Virginia want and deserve.

“And I encourage the people of Virginia to carefully consider the decision they will make this November.  Our priority should be on electing a Governor who has the ability to effectively and responsibly govern our state and provide the mainstream leadership we need to solve problems, get things done and make Virginia a better place to live.  Nothing less should be acceptable.”

Weekly Poll: The Republican nomination for governor in 2013; Bolling or Cuccinelli? (Poll

Bearing Drift has a poll up regarding the gubernatorial race between Ken Cuccinelli and Bill Bolling. Go vote, please.

H/T P. Henry Saddelburr from Disrupt the Narrative

VA Attorney General Intervenes in Ballot Access Dispute

VA Attorney General Intervenes in Ballot Access Dispute

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is intervening in his state’s presidential primary dispute and plans to file emergency legislation to address the inability of most Republican presidential candidates to get their name on the ballot, Fox News has learned.

H/T Big Government

The Man Is Earning His Pay

Attorney General Cuccinelli announces he will seek expedited review of Virginia health care lawsuit in the Supreme Court

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.

Justice

Supreme Court may weigh coverage mandate

Health care reform now in court's hands

The same Supreme Court justices whom President Obama blasted during his State of the Union address this year may ultimately decide the fate of his crowning achievement as more than a dozen states have called on the courts to strike down the health insurance mandate of Democrats' health care overhaul - a move that would threaten the entire law.

Two major constitutional challenges have been levied against the new law, one by the state of Virginia, which enacted a law exempting its citizens from the federal health insurance mandate, and another by Florida and 12 other states. Legal scholars are divided on the merits of the cases, and even Congress - through its research service and its budget scorekeeper - has said it's an open question whether the provision could pass constitutional muster.

At issue is the scope of the federal government's power over states and individuals. Critics of the law say the requirement that all Americans buy insurance or pay a fine, if allowed, would mean that Congress has virtually boundless authority to compel actions. Proponents argue that legal precedents support an expansive reading of the legislative branch's license to regulate such activity.

"This is one of the most consequential lawsuits in our generation," said Baker Hostetler lawyer David B. Rivkin Jr., who is serving as outside counsel to the 13 states that have filed suit. "The fact you have so many different state attorneys general, Republicans and Democrats, from a variety of states coming together to do this just underscores how strongly they feel that the act infringes core constitutional interests of their respective states."

The mandate, which doesn't take effect until 2014, is central to Democrats' goal of insuring about 32 million more Americans. The law would offer tax credits to low-income individuals and allow young adults to remain on their parents' policies longer.

Both of the state lawsuits challenge the federal government's authority under the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. The Florida case also cites a violation of the 10th Amendment, which reserves those powers not spelled out under the federal government in the Constitution to the state governments, and argues that the health care law's expansion of state Medicaid programs threatens state sovereignty.

Among the arguments against the law is that because it does not allow for purchasing insurance across state lines - the insurance exchanges are state-based - the buying of health insurance does not constitute interstate commerce. In addition, the plaintiffs say, not purchasing health insurance does not constitute an economic activity.

"Thus far in our history, it has never been held that the Commerce Clause, even when aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause, can be used to require citizens to buy goods or services," Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II argues in his state's lawsuit. "To depart from that history to permit the national government to require the purchase of goods or services would ... create powers indistinguishable from a general police power in total derogation of our constitutional scheme of enumerated powers."

While a requirement to buy health insurance might be new, some legal analysts say, Congress can in fact define an economic activity as something that results from not taking an action.

"The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits hotels and restaurants from discriminating based on race and thus prohibits inactivity," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, noting that law relied upon the Commerce Clause. "The Supreme Court has said that Congress can regulate economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Buying or refusing to buy insurance is economic activity. The effect on the economy is enormous."

More here.

Investors Business Daily via Patriot Post

Editorial Exegesis

"Idaho requires its attorney general to sue the feds if ObamaCare passes while Virginia, the cradle of liberty, heads the line of states in front of the federal courtroom. Somewhere Patrick Henry is smiling.

As the second coming of King George III seeks to impose the leftist mandate of national health insurance on the unwilling American people, the states are once again in revolt. This time they're unwilling to be the colonies of an imperial federal government determined to spend and tax us into bankruptcy while treating the Constitution as if it were bird cage liner. Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they risked being hanged by the British crown because they said we shouldn't be taxed without representation? Well, we have representation, and they care not about the people they represent. ...

Not amused is Idaho, the latest state to jump into the fray last Wednesday, with Gov. C.L. 'Butch' Otter signing into law a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance. 'The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' Otter told reporters. 'But I'll tell you what, you got 36 states; that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass.'

Otter shares the belief that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is a mandate to buy health insurance or anything else. ... He believes in the 10th Amendment, in states' rights as defined in the Constitution. All powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states and to the people. Mandating health insurance is not one of them. Some would say these states are stepping on Superman's cape, that federal law trumps state law. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says that's true only when the federal law has some basis in the Constitution and is not in itself unconstitutional." --

Investor's Business Daily

Petition In Support of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

Petition in Support of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s

Suit to Overturn the Health Care Individual Mandate

WHEREAS, the health care bill recently passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama includes a mandate requiring Americans to purchase health care insurance, and
WHEREAS, federal officials claim that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution gives the federal government the authority to force citizens to purchase health care insurance, and
WHEREAS, by definition, a person who refuses to purchase is NOT engaging in interstate commerce, and
WHEREAS, a citizen who is not engaging in commerce may not be compelled to engage in commerce by the federal government, and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may not regulate non-commercial activities using the commerce clause, and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia has passed a law protecting Virginia’s citizens from this unconstitutional mandate,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the undersigned citizens of the United States support the lawsuit brought by the Commonwealth of Virginia to declare the health care individual mandate unconstitutional.

This Site Supports Attorney General Cuccinelli

Statement of Support for Litigation to Stop ObamaCare

I believe that government-mandated requirements for individuals to obtain health insurance are unconstitutional. Congress is not granted the power to force Americans to comply with such a mandate. Likewise, I believe requirements that employers provide such insurance coverage are also unconstitutional.

If Congress had the power to force Americans to have health insurance, then individual liberty would be overpowered and thus become meaningless. No matter what certain elected officials may desire, there are some things Congress simply cannot do under our Constitution. I do not want the federal government or any group of bureaucrats policing my private medical decisions. The legislation that passed Congress on March 21, 2010, popularly known as the ObamaCare healthcare reform bill, contains such a “mandate,” and is therefore a threat to individual liberty and the sovereignty of the States. I therefore support legal action to stop ObamaCare.

Virginia AG Puts His Foot Down

EDITORIAL: Cuccinelli fights the EPA
Virginia attorney general questions global warming red tape

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli took a gutsy and intelligent step Feb. 17 when he petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its ill-advised "finding" that carbon dioxide creates an endangerment for human health.

The endangerment finding would let the EPA battle alleged global warming by regulating emissions of CO2, which of course is the gas that every animal and person exhales with every breath. The finding was ludicrous from the start, and now Mr. Cuccinelli makes a reasonable case that it also was unlawful.

"Attorney General Cuccinelli believes that the EPA acted in an arbitrary and capricious fashion and failed to properly exercise its judgment by relying almost exclusively on reports from the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an arm of the United Nations] in attributing climate change to [human-caused] greenhouse gas emissions," the AG's office explains. "The IPCC is an international body that is not subject to U.S. data quality and transparency standards and the IPCC prepared their reports in total disregard to U.S. Standards."

Since the EPA finding was issued, the IPPC's reports have become subject to scandal on multiple fronts. Those scandals reached a crescendo when a British newspaper, the Daily Mail, reported Feb. 14 that "The academic at the centre of the 'Climategate' affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble 'keeping track' of the information. ... And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming."

Obviously, if the EPA were relying on bad data like all of the other climate-change fanatics, it ought to reconsider its plans to further strangle our struggling economy with more unnecessary red tape.

Mr. Cuccinelli argues that the EPA failed to meet its responsibility to conduct appropriate cost-benefit analysis, and that the economic harm to American citizens - including Virginians - would outweigh any purported benefits of the new regulations.

As the AG put it, "We cannot allow unelected bureaucrats with political agendas to use falsified data to regulate American industry and drive our economy into the ground." Of course, he's spot on.

This Is Why We Elected Him

Virginia Attorney General Challenges EPA Power Grab on Carbon Emissions
BY John McCormack

Virginia's attorney general Ken Cuccinelli filed a petition yesterday to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's December 7 ruling that it would regulate greenhouse gases as it would air pollutants under the Clean Air Act--a back door attempt to accomplish what Congress can't through cap and trade. Cuccinelli argues that the scandal surrounding "climate change" reports should force the EPA to reconsider its ruling. He said of the Climategate scandal at a press conference today: "This wasn't the pursuit of truth. It was political science, not science in the typical sense of the word."

As Steven F. Hayward wrote in THE WEEKLY STANDARD in December on "The EPA's Power Grab":
The greatest irony of the EPA's entry into the fray is that it may reopen the supposedly "settled" question of climate science itself, which has new salience because of the firestorm over the "climategate" scandal involving the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia. There is in addition a separate tale of leaked emails from the EPA itself that has received surprisingly little attention.

Designating carbon dioxide as a Clean Air Act "pollutant" involves a finding that CO2 is a hazard to human health. Common sense suggests this is a stretch. Unlike ozone, which burns lung tissue and harms plant growth, or airborne lead, which harms brain development in children, human beings exhale carbon dioxide--800 pounds per person per year according to the EPA--and CO2 is the primary nutrient for plant life on earth. Since the EPA can't make the case that CO2 is toxic like other air pollution, it based its endangerment finding entirely on indirect or secondary effects, specifically the possibility of more deaths from heat waves, higher ozone levels (ozone tends to rise with temperature), more insect-borne diseases and allergies, and higher vulnerability to extreme weather events such as hurricanes and tornadoes. Each of these claims rests on dubious or contested scientific findings.

In general, human health in the United States keeps improving. Deaths from heat waves in this country have been steadily declining. The EPA's own models project falling ozone levels for the next generation. Vector-borne disease rates (think malaria) correlate much more closely with wealth and poverty than with temperature, and recent research casts doubt on the super-hurricane scenarios.

But according to the Washington Post, the global warming reports have been "questioned for mistakes ranging from typographical errors to problems with sourcing." You know, a typo here, a bad footnote there--nothing so scandalous as "hid[ing] the decline" in a set of global temperature records.

Morning Radio: You Should Listen

Norman Leahy from Tertium Quids is hosting WRVA's morning show. Should make for a good ride to the shipyard in the morning.

So tomorrow's the big day, when I guest host WRVA's morning show from 5AM to 9 AM while that Richmond institution, Jimmy Barrett, gets some well-deserved time off.

While there's plenty of normal news radio fare -- headlines, weather, sports and traffic -- there are a few opportunities for guests to appear.

Here's who I have on tap for tomorrow morning...

Dr. Bob Holsworth, Richmond's resident political sage and publisher of Virginia Tomorrow.

Dr. Adam Schaeffer, a Virginia Institute senior fellow in education reform and a Cato Institute policy analyst.

Dr. Ron Utt, an Virginia Institute adjunct fellow, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a member of Bob McDonnell's transition team.

Stephen Moore, the senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal and former president of the Club for Growth.

Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia's Attorney General.

Dr. Pat Michaels, the former Virginia climatologist, a distinguished senior fellow at George Mason University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

If you're inclined to do so, the live, online stream can be heard here, though I am told that when conditions are just right, the signal can be heard, clearly, as far away as Cleveland.

For the record, in the winter of 1966, the car I was riding in picked up the WRVA signal north of Marlette, Michigan.

This Is Why We Elected Him

"No law shall restrict a person's natural right and power of contract to secure the blessings of liberty to choose private health care systems or private plans. No law shall interfere with the right of a person or entity to pay for lawful medical services to preserve life or health, nor shall any law impose a penalty, tax, fee, or fine, of any type, to decline or to contract for health care coverage or to participate in any particular health care system or plan, except as required by a court where an individual or entity is a named party in a judicial dispute. Nothing herein shall be construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify any determination of law regarding what constitutes lawful medical services within the Commonwealth."

Incoming AG to feds: Hands off my state
Virginia leader chomping at the bit to fight 'Obamacare'

Officials in Virginia a short time ago joined attorneys general in a dozen other states to object to the provisions of "Obamacare," the pending legislation that would give the federal goverment unprecedented control of health care, and the state's incoming attorney general is chomping at the bit to get to work on the issue.

Ken Cuccinelli, who took the oath of office this weekend, said it's a simple matter of the government lacking authority to impose the decisions members of Congress are making for their constituents. "I believe the individual mandate violates individual rights," Cuccinelli said in an interview. "I do not believe the federal government has the legal authority in the [U.S.] Constitution to mandate that individual Americans purchase health insurance.

"A corollary to that is that the [Senate] bill, as it is currently written, requires state governments to set up healthcare exchanges to facilitate individual mandates. I do not believe that under the Constitution the federal government has the authority to dictate or effectively force states into its bureaucracy,” he said.

The opposition is just one of the moves afoot to challenge the Democrat plan should it eventually succeed and be adopted as law. The outgoing Virginia attorney general, Bill Mims, had joined with 12 other Republican state attorneys general to object to the Senate's version, which exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid fees.

The group wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., late last month asking that the provision by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., be struck from the bill to "avoid litigation."

They also warned, "By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation."

The Nebraska provision was inserted to exempt the state from paying significant costs of health care that taxpayers in other states will be required to pay. It was added to obtain support for the bill from Nelson, who had a number of objections.
Cuccinielli, a strong advocate for states' rights as outlined in the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, said his office simply will not defend a statute that violates the state or U.S. constitutions.

He also said he will be working with attorneys general from other states on that very issue. For his own state, he's hoping the General Assembly will adopt a law that would protect its citizens from anything unconstitutional in the federal health care plan . State Delegate Bob Marshall, a Republican, already has formulated a bill.

GO

Vote!!!!!





And if you don't think your vote matters.......






Go vote for McDonnell, Bolling, and Cuccinelli.



You know, since it doesn't matter.........to you.....

Where Cuccinelli Stands

From Ken Cuccinelli, candidate for Attorney General

August 1, 2009

Dear Fellow Virginians,
For those of you that have been asking, here is a checklist of some of the issue differences I have with my opponent. Mind you, this is NOT comprehensive, and certain issues are more directly and frequently related to the responsibilities of the Attorney General, but I won't go into that level of detail here.

Issue Δ
First, I have to explain what "Δ" means. I was an engineer before I was a lawyer, and I still think like an engineer. Much of the very little shorthand that I have uses engineering symbols. "Δ" is 'delta' in Greek, and in engineering it stands for 'the difference.' E.g., the Δ between 15 and 50 is 35. So, here it is, from lowest numbered constitutional amendment to highest and alphabetically:

2nd Amendment: I support it as an individual right for law abiding adults, while my opponent supports gun control.

5th Amendment (property rights/eminent domain): This is a little confusing because since the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision, the 5th Amendment no longer protects property rights. I have been a premier leader in pushing to re-establish property rights - as the founding fathers wanted - both in Virginia law and in our state constitution. In 2007, after three years of work, I succeeded in getting a law passed protecting property rights, but we continue to work to get a constitutional amendment. My opponent has opposed these efforts, siding instead with the special interests that want to be able to easily take your property by using their political connections. This is why Verizon, among the biggest opponents of property rights, has sided with my opponent in this race. Because he's a guy they can "work with." You know what that means, right?

10th Amendment: This is the state sovereignty amendment, and it reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Sates respectively, or to the people." When the federal government oversteps its constitutional boundaries, as it seems poised to do in areas like our right to work laws, then the 10th Amendment gives states a way to fight back in court. In our only debate (you may recall that my opponent is ducking debates), I said that I would resist certain federal encroachments, such as in the area of right to work and in order to allow Virginia to maintain its own regulatory authority (cap and trade anyone?).

In that debate, I challenged my opponent to make the same commitment. He would not commit to protecting Virginia from such encroachments. And for those of you that may have attended a Tea Party recently, my opponent held a telephone conference call for the press last month in which he condemned the entire "Tea Party movement" (in case you weren't sure what he thought of YOU...).

Energy: I support drilling offshore for oil, while my opponent does not - this despite the fact that in our first debate he correctly stated that such energy production is important to our national security. I also have a much better record of protecting our coal industry while continuing to push for the cleaner use of coal. I support the aggressive expansion of our nuclear industry and making accommodations so market-competitive alternative energy can be brought on line.

Life: I am pro-life and he is not. He has a Family Foundation score of 13 - yikes!
Marriage Amendment: I supported it, he flip-flopped, coming out against it just before the election in 2006.

Melendez-Diaz vs. Massachusetts: This is the June 25th case that caused me to ask the Governor to call a special session, which he did, but not until after my opponent called it "a political stunt." Thankfully, Governor Kaine agreed with me and not my opponent. I am on the right track in addressing this legislatively to make sure our prosecutors don't lose any more drunk driving or drug cases because of the Melendez decision. My opponent still hasn't said what his proposed alternative to legislation is in this area, AND he mistakenly claimed that he had a bill in 2007 (HB 2086) that would have fixed the Melendez problem in drunk driving cases, but he got the law wrong! Woops.

Right to work: I strongly support Virginia's right to work laws, while my opponent has repeatedly voted against protecting our right to work. He has a 100% voting record with the AFL-CIO, I have a 0%. This is a very important issue to Virginia's economy, and it is threatened by federal "card check" legislation (which is why our stands on the 10th Amendment are so important). Maybe this is why both the AFL-CIO and the SEIU both donated tens of thousands of dollars to my opponent in June!

Supporting small business: I earned my second 100% scorecard in a row from the NFIB (the small business folks, and the only pure business group left in Richmond). NFIB's scorecards cover two years each, so I've had a 100% voting record for four straight years, also earning their "Guardian of Small Business Award" in 2007 for my leadership on property rights protection (only a select few of NFIB's 100% voters ever get this award). On the other hand, my opponent has a 50% score on the most recent NFIB scorecard.

Taxes: Part of being for limited government means limiting taxes wherever possible. I have been a strong fighter against tax increases, while my opponent has regularly supported them. He has even voted for sales tax increases after campaigning hard against that particular tax (woops, another flip-flop).

A Word of Advice to the Cuccinelli Campaign Workers

Keep your ass off the interstate median strips. Not only is it dangerous, it is absolutely illegal for private citizens to place signs on interstate right-of-ways.
Now go back and remove that Cuccinelli sign from the median strip on 295 at the Mechanicsville exit. Be careful.

Dangerous ID Act

VA Legislation to Stop Real ID in Virginia

RPVNetwork

Sat, 01/10/2009 - 09:49.
Real Id
VA Liberty Defense, along with 10 other organizations have joined forces in a statewide campaign to add Virginia to the growing list of states to enact anti-Real ID legislation.
Twenty-one (21) states have engaged in an all-out revolt against Dangerous ID (the so-called Real ID scam) and have already passed legislation that will nix the federal mandate and more are expected to follow.
There will be a Rally in support of Delegate Bob Marshall's H.B.1587 and Senator Ken Cuccinelli's S.B.481 at the Virginia State Capital Bell Tower on January 21, 2009 at 1:00 pm.