• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Defending the Constitution Against Radical Federal Government Power

    “We don’t sue because we don’t like things. That is what elections are for,” Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli told the closing lunch of the Fall 2010 Legal Strategy Forum, “We sue because some things the federal government has done are unconstitutional.” Speaking at The Heritage Foundation Thursday, Cucinelli urged the public interest lawyers in attendance to do all that they can to educate the public about how the federal government’s ever expanding power is antithetical to our nation’s First Principles. “These legal battles have been coming for some time. The hyper aggressive expansion of federal power did not start in the last two years. The problem stretches back into previous administrations,” he said.

    While Virginia is also involved with litigation against the Environmental Protection Agency, Cuccinelli spent most of his time addressing Virginia’s suit challenging the federal government’s power to force all Americans to buy health insurance. Cuccinelli reached all they way back to before the nation’s founding to bolster his claim that an individual mandate is beyond the scope of powers the Founding Fathers intended the federal government to have.

    In 1774, the First Continental Congress implemented a trade boycott against Great Britain in protest of the Intolerable Acts. When King George III asked if the colonists could boycott British goods, his solicitor general informed him it was beyond the power of the king to mandate that his subjects buy specific goods like tea. “The power of the United States government under the Constitution must be smaller than that of King George,” Cuccinelli said.

    Cuccinelli also recounted an admission made by former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger at an earlier panel discussion. Pressed to identify what – if any – boundaries there are to federal government power if courts find the individual mandate Constitutional, Dellinger said the only boundary left would be politics. “Congress could force you to buy cars. Even a specific car, like an Equinox. I have an Equinox. You don’t want one.”

    Cuccinelli had one word to describe such an interpretation of federal government power: “radical.”

    Posted in First Principles, Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    9 Responses to Defending the Constitution Against Radical Federal Government Power

    1. Paul Johnson, Sierra says:

      I just love articles like these!

    2. Paul Rinderle says:

      The Democrat party might be likened to a ten story cruise ship.

      Each floor occupied By, Islam,Gays,anti-God,anti religion,anti military, multi-culturalists, abortionists, Socialism, anti Constitution, anti family, and politically correct paralysis.

      No floor can sail alone.

      The Party is "ONE SHIP".

      May Nov. 2 be the first successful torpedo to hit this ship.

    3. dennis st.augustine says:

      Our constitution can only be interpted by people with common sense. Who understand the greatness and wisdom of the founding fathers who drafted it. It's clear that Washington has none.

    4. Barry S, says:

      …and this is exactly why Messiah Obama will either be impeached before 2012 or he will be voted out of office at that time. People are angry, although Obama will chide them for not being receptive to his Socialist agenda (How DARE they? How could those hicks who cling to their guns and religion do this to me?). It's simple, Obama. You are hired by US, not the other way around. WE pay YOUR salary, and when you create an agenda that is unconstitutional and contrary to what our nation's founders intended, YOU are the one who will be eliminated from office. Who knows, maybe you can get a job in the private sector, just like the rest of us. Problem is…outside of the liberal news media or public university, who in the private sector would hire you?

      Looks like I will be getting a new bumper sticker. If the Liberals can still have them pasted to the rear of their cars, I can too.

    5. Pingback: Healthcare and the Constitution

    6. Carol,AZ says:

      " My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

      Thomas Jefferson-1802

    7. F S Dunaway, Carthag says:

      Wonderful comparison Tea vs. Medical Insurance…pure intellectual & political arrongance!

    8. E. Wesley Reynolds, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Midland, MI says:

      What were Cuccinelli’s sources regarding the exchange between King George and the Solicitor General, and where are they available?

      In Liberty,
      Wesley Reynolds
      Mackinac Center for Public Policy

    9. S. Cooper, Californi says:

      Who regulates the regulators? Can the president circumvent congress by having regulators pass regulations of his choosing? Could this lead to a president with supreme power? (FCC, Medicare end-of-life rules, etc.).

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.