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 or section
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Cuccinelli v Sebelius brief

Cuccinelli v Sebelius brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 214|Likes:
Published by The Roanoke Times
4th US Circuit Court of Appeals
4th US Circuit Court of Appeals

More info:

Published by: The Roanoke Times on Mar 29, 2011
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

03/29/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
Record Nos. 11-1057 & 11-1058In the United States Court of Appealsfor the Fourth Circuit
 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,ex rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II,in his official capacity asAttorney General of Virginia,
 
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
 
v.KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of theDepartment of Health and Human Services,
 
in her official capacity,
 
Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
__________________________________ 
 
On Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Virginia
 __________________________________ 
APPELLEE’S
OPENING AND RESPONSE BRIEF
ENNETH
T.
 
C
UCCINELLI
,
 
II
 
Attorney General of Virginia
 
E.
 
D
UNCAN
G
ETCHELL
,
 
J
R
.Virginia State Bar No. 14156Solicitor General of Virginiadgetchell@oag.state.va.us
Counsel of Record
 
S
TEPHEN
R.
 
M
C
C
ULLOUGH
 
Senior Appellate Counselsmccullough@oag.state.va.us
March 28, 2011
 
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
TTORNEY 
G
ENERAL
900 East Main StreetRichmond, Virginia 23219Telephone: (804) 786-2436
 
Facsimile: (804) 786-1991
 
Counsel for theCommonwealth of Virginia
 
Case: 11-1058 Document: 100 Date Filed: 03/28/2011 Page: 1
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageTABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................... iii
 
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................... 1
 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................. 1
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................... 7
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................. 10
 
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 13
 
I.
 
VIRGINIA HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THEMANDATE AND PENALTY ...................................................... 13
 
II. THE MANDATE AND PENALTY ARE BEYONDTHE OUTER LIMITS OF THE COMMERCECLAUSE. .................................................................................... 23
 
A. The Mandate and Penalty are Not Supportedby the Text of the Commerce Clause .................................. 25
 
B.
 
The Historical Context in which theCommerce Clause was Drafted Makes itHighly Unlikely that it Included a Power toCommand a Citizen to Purchase Goods orServices From Another ........................................................ 28
 
C.
 
There is No Tradition of Using the CommerceClause to Require a Citizen to Purchase Goodsor Services from Another Citizen. ....................................... 32
 
D.
 
The Mandate and Penalty are Outside of theOuter Limits of the Commerce Clause asMeasured by Supreme Court Precedent ............................. 33
 
Case: 11-1058 Document: 100 Date Filed: 03/28/2011 Page: 2
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED
PageiiE.
 
The Mandate And Penalty Are Not A Valid
Exercise Of Congress‘s Power Under The
Necessary And Proper Clause ............................................. 38
 
F.
 
The Decision To Forgo Insurance Is Not AnActivity Substantially Affecting CommerceWithin The Meaning Of The Necessary AndProper Clause ...................................................................... 43
 
III.
 
THE MANDATE AND PENALTY ARE NOTAUTHORIZED BY THE POWER TO TAX ................................ 53
 
IV.
 
THE SEVERANCE RULING BELOW WASERRONEOUS ............................................................................. 62
 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 69
 
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(A) ....................... 70
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................. 71
 
Case: 11-1058 Document: 100 Date Filed: 03/28/2011 Page: 3

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

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)//-->