Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Virginia v. Sebelius, Cato Legal Briefs

Virginia v. Sebelius, Cato Legal Briefs

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,057|Likes:
Published by Cato Institute

More info:

Published by: Cato Institute on Jun 17, 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

10/10/2013

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. 3:10-cv-00188-HEH)KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, )Secretary of the Department of )Health and Human Services, )in her official capacity, ))Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM OF THE CATO INSTITUTE, COMPETITIVEENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, AND PROF. RANDY E. BARNETTAS
 AMICI CURIAE
SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TODEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
 Robert A. Levy*Ilya Shapiro*David H. Rittgers (VA Bar #77245)Evan Turgeon*C
ATO
I
NSTITUTE
 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NWWashington, DC 20001(202) 842-0200Patrick M. McSweeney (VA Bar #5669)
Counsel of Record 
 G. William Norris, Jr. (VA Bar #41754)M
C
S
WEENEY
,
 
C
RUMP
,
 
C
HILDRESS
&T
EMPLE
, P.C.11 South 12th StreetRichmond, VA 23219(804) 783-6802Hans Bader*C
OMPETITIVE
E
NTERPRISE
I
NSTITUTE
 1899 L Street, NW, 12
th
FloorWashington, DC 20036(202) 331-2278* - Not admitted in this court
 Attorneys for 
Amici Curiae
 
i
CORPORATE & FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 of the Eastern District of Virginia and to enable Judges andMagistrate Judges to evaluate possible disqualifications or recusal, the undersigned counsel forthe Cato Institute (“Cato”) and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (“CEI”) in the abovecaptioned action, certify that there are no parents, trusts, subsidiaries and/or affiliates of Cato orCEI that have issued shares or debt securities to the public.Pursuant to Fourth Circuit Local Rule 26.1, Cato Institute and CEI each declare that theyare nonprofit public policy research foundations dedicated in part to the defense of constitutionalliberties secured by law. Cato and CEI each state that they have no parent corporation. CEIissues no stock, while Cato has issued a handful of shares that are privately held by its directors.No publicly held corporation has a direct financial interest in the outcome of this litigation due tothe participation of Cato or CEI.
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CORPORATE & FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS ................................... iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... iiiINTEREST OF
 AMICI CURIAE 
.....................................................................................1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................................................2ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................4I. Every Act of Congress Must Have a Constitutional Source .................................4II. The Individual Mandate Is Not a Legitimate Exercise of theNecessary and Proper Clause ................................................................................6A. The Necessary and Proper Clause Limits Congressional Power ..............71. “Shall Be” .............................................................................................72. “Necessary”...........................................................................................83. “Proper” ................................................................................................94. “For Carrying Into Execution”..............................................................95. “Powers Vested by this Constitution”.................................................10B. The Individual Mandate Cannot Be Based Solely on theNecessary and Proper Clause Because That Clause Does NotGrant Any Independent Constitutional Power ........................................11C. The Individual Mandate Cannot Be Predicated on Congress’ Powerto Regulate Interstate Health Insurance Markets Because theNecessary and Proper Clause Cannot
 Mandate
Economic Activity .......12III. The Individual Mandate Is Not a Legitimate Exercise of Congress’Taxing Power Because It Is Either a Regulation, an Unconstitutional Tax,or Must Be Justified Through Some Other Enumerated Power .........................15CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................21CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..............................................................................23CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................24

You're Reading a Free Preview

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