Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed
Posted at 11:36 AM ET, 02/16/2011

Cuccinelli testifies before Congress on health care lawsuit

By Rosalind S. Helderman
Rosalind S. Helderman

Virginia Attorney Gen. Ken Cuccinelli (R) told members of Congress Wednesday that his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal health care law is "modest."

"Within the boundaries of constitutional text and precedent, we simply seek a determination that, in passing the individual mandate and penalty as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Congress exceeded the powers granted it by the Constitution," Cuccinelli told the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, according to prepared remarks distributed by his office.

Cuccinelli's political opponents would likely dispute that notion, given that Cuccinelli's suit could help bring down President Obama's signature legislative achievement and has landed the controversial Virginia Attorney General in D.C., the star of a GOP-led congressional committee meeting on the issue.

Other speakers at the hearing about the constitutionality of requiring individuals to obtain health insurance, a key provision of the bill, were Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett, who like Cuccinelli believes the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and Duke University Law School professor Walter Dellinger, who believes the opposite.

Cuccinelli otherwise reviewed the contentions of his suit, in which he argues Congress exceeded its authority to regulate interstate commerce with the individual mandate.

"Faced with these legal obstacles, supporters of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act often make arguments that are not based on the Constitution or on decisions of the Supreme Court, but rather, are nothing more than appeals to address a pressing national problem. The argument is that there is a serious problem that must be fixed, and thus, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act must be constitutional because it is an attempt to solve that problem. In a society based on the rule of law, such an argument cannot be credited," he said, according to the prepared remarks.


By Rosalind S. Helderman  | February 16, 2011; 11:36 AM ET
Categories:  Ken Cuccinelli, Rosalind Helderman  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Prince William seeks investigation of ICE
Next: Democrats everywhere waiting for Kaine to decide on Senate race

No comments have been posted to this entry.

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company