Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
PLAINTIFF‟S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFF‟S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Ratings: (0)|Views: 503 |Likes:
Published by skuhagen
Latest filing in Virginia attorney general's health care lawsuit
Latest filing in Virginia attorney general's health care lawsuit

More info:

Published by: skuhagen on Jun 08, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIARICHMOND DIVISIONCOMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )EX REL. KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II, )in his official capacity as )Attorney General of Virginia, ))Plaintiff, )v. ) Civil Action No. 3:10cv188)KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, )Secretary of the Department )of Health and Human Services, )in her official capacity, ))Defendant. )
 
PLAINTIFF‟S MEMORAN
DUM IN OPPOSITIONTO MOTION TO DISMISS
K
ENNETH
T.
 
C
UCCINELLI
,
 
II
 
Attorney General of VirginiaE.
 
D
UNCAN
G
ETCHELL
,
 
J
R
.Virginia State Bar No. 14156State Solicitor Generaldgetchell@oag.state.va.us 
Counsel of Record 
S
TEPHEN
R.
 
M
C
C
ULLOUGH
 
Virginia State Bar No. 41699Senior Appellate Counselsmccullough@oag.state.va.us C
HARLES
E.
 
J
AMES
,
 
J
R
.
 
Chief Deputy Attorney General
 
W
ESLEY
G.
 
R
USSELL
,
 
J
R
.
 
Virginia State Bar No. 38756Deputy Attorney Generalwrussell@oag.state.va.us O
FFICE OF THE
A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
900 East Main StreetRichmond, Virginia 23219Telephone: (804) 786-2436
 
Facsimile: (804) 786-1991
Counsel for theCommonwealth of Virginia
Case 3:10-cv-00188-HEH Document 28 Filed 06/07/10 Page 1 of 52
 
 i
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPageTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii
 
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
 
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 11
 
I. VIRGINIA HAS STANDING TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION ........................ 11
 
II. THE ANTI-
INJUNCTION ACT DOES NOT BAR VIRGINIA‟S
CLAIM .................................................................................................................... 17
 
III. THIS CASE AND CONTROVERSY IS FULLY MATUREAND RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION ....................................................................... 20
 
IV. THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE AND ITS PENALTYPROVISION ARE BEYOND THE OUTER LIMITS OF THECOMMERCE CLAUSE. ........................................................................................ 20
 
A.
 
The Individual Mandate and its Penalty Provision ViolateFoundational Understandings .......................................................................... 22
 
1.
 
The Individual Mandate and its Penalty Provision are NotSupported by the Text of the Commerce Clause ...................................... 22
 
2.
 
The Historical Context in which the Commerce Clause wasDrafted Makes it Highly Unlikely that it Included a Power toCommand a Citizen to Purchase Goods or Services FromAnother ..................................................................................................... 24
 
3.
 
There is No Tradition of Using the Commerce Clause toRequire a Citizen to Purchase Goods or Services fromAnother Citizen ......................................................................................... 26
 
B.
 
The Individual Mandate and its Penalty Provision are Outside of theOuter Limits of the Commerce Clause as Measured bySupreme Court Precedent ................................................................................. 28
 
C.
 
The Individual Mandate and its Penalty Provision Cannot Be SustainedUnder the Taxing Power .................................................................................. 31
 
D. The Individual Mandate and its Penalty Provision are NotSustainable Under the Necessary and Proper Clause ....................................... 37
 
Case 3:10-cv-00188-HEH Document 28 Filed 06/07/10 Page 2 of 52
 
 ii
 
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 39
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 41
 
Case 3:10-cv-00188-HEH Document 28 Filed 06/07/10 Page 3 of 52

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
puretrust liked this
sainraja liked this
mp171717 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->