76°Mostly Cloudy

Cuccinelli to Talk to Young Republicans in Clarendon

by ARLnow.com November 21, 2011 at 2:00 pm 2,487 51 Comments

State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will speak to members of several Northern Virginia Young Republican clubs in Clarendon tonight.

Cuccinelli will be speaking at the clubs’ joint meeting at RiRa Irish Pub (2915 Wilson Blvd), which is scheduled to get underway at 7:00 p.m. Cuccinelli, who earned his J.D. from the George Mason University School of Law, has won the plaudits of Republicans and the ire of Democrats for challenging a number of federal laws and policies from health care to immigration to climate change.

“During his first year in office, Cuccinelli gained national attention as the man who took on Obamacare, being the first attorney general to legally challenge President Obama’s 2010 health care legislation,” the Arlington/Falls Church Young Republicans said in a press release. “He made headlines after filing a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of Virginia on the grounds that forcing people to buy health insurance was unconstitutional, especially since it went against state law.”

A federal appeals court recently dismissed Cuccinelli’s healthcare lawsuit, saying that Virginia lacked the standing to sue.

  • Flying Spaghetti Monster

    It gladdens my heart to know there’ll be an entire pub full of people committed to keeping the gays from marrying.

    • novasteve

      You are in a minority here in Nova. All of Virginia is not limited to Arlington. look at a map. Why did the democrats of PG county prevent gay marriage in Maryland?

      • Not Lyin’ Steve

        They blamed it on their religion.

        • Josh S

          Well said.

      • Vik

        Why should gays be prevented from being together and sharing the same legal and financial benefits that heterosexual couples? Why is that the business of the government? It’s not about what Democrats in PG County decided (not sure why you’re using views of people you dislike to strengthen your argument) or whether people with certain views are in the minority or not. We live in a republic.

        • drax

          steve is all about majority rule, until it’s time for a smoke.

        • Burger

          Exactly.

          Though, if you talk to a subset of gays they are not exactly fighting hard for this. A couple of gay couples I know in NY saw their income dropped when NY passed the same-sex marriage act because there company dropped the “gross-up” on benefits.

          • AllenB

            I’m not sure of your frame of reference for the statement that gays are not fighting hard for this. Nearly all gays know that this is kind of the holy grail of equal rights – win this and it’s pretty much game over for the religious zealots who want the bible to be law in this country. And the zealots and haters know this too – their kind is literally dying off (look at the polling by age bracket).

        • Zoning Victim

          Why is anyone’s relationship the business of the government? Marriage is a religious ritual. The government should drop all rules and regulations related to marriage and let the people govern their own relationships. I don’t need the state of Virginia to come and tell me that I need to have a trial separation for six months before I get a divorce. If I’m at that point, I’ve already been trying to repair a broken relationship for quite some time and don’t need six more months to think it over. I also don’t need a bigger tax bill for being married or an overgrown federal government deciding who can get married and who can’t. I don’t know where in the world anyone could possibly believe that the Constitution grants the federal government authority to regulate marriage.

          • novasteve

            Exactly. That’s my view. There should be no government recognition of marriage as it’s a religious institution. No benefits from the government. Why didn’t I get benefits for my Bar Mitzvah? Why don’t catholics get benefits for their Confirmations? Why not for baptism? Why not for circumcision? It’s a private thing. You shouldn’t be demanding benefits fromt he government for your private choices.

          • The Queen

            Soon as they stop giving “special rights” to hetero marriages, I will agree with you.

          • Zoning Victim

            I think we’re both saying that we thing they should stop giving special rights to anyone for getting married no matter what subgroup you might fall into. At least, that’s what I’m saying.

    • BigLove

      Why is polygamy illegal? seriously.

      • novasteve

        The same logic for gay marriage means polygamy must be legalized as well so long as consenting adults are involved. Also incest, so long as they are consenting adults.

        • drax

          Yet your logic can lead the other direction, steve. No marriage for old people or the infertile since they can’t have children…heck, no marriage at all.

          We can define marriage however we want, no more, no less.

          • novasteve

            No, I was using the “consenting adult” standard which is what liberals are arguing for gay marriage. If you legalize gay marriage you cannot justify making incestuous and polygamous marriages illegal so long as they are consenting adults.

          • drax

            I never said “consenting adult.”

          • Andrew

            You’re right drax, you did not say “consenting adult,” Steve did in his argument. You took his argument in a completely different and unrelated direction by bringing the ability to have children.

          • drax

            No, I used a common right-wing argument against itself – before steve explained his assumption.

          • Zoning Victim

            I have never heard a right-winged argument that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t have kids, but it doesn’t surprise me that someone like you would try to make it seem like it was a common argument used by conservatives.

          • t

            wow, you just put incest in the same category as the rights of two men or two women to commit to one another? sounds pretty homophobic, steve.

            being pro-gay marriage is about allowing individuals, who have trust and love in their relationship, the same basic civil right to marry as any heterosexual couple. the love between the individuals belongs to them only, harms no one, and comes from a place of mutual respect. one would hope you couldn’t argue that incest and polygamy foster that same amount of pure and positive human emotion.

          • novasteve

            here we go again, claims of bigotry to silence people who don’t share your view. Why are you bigoted against brother and sister if they are consenting adults? What harm comes from polygamy?

            Why do you have a huge double standard? So you will tolerate bigotry against these other groups? You don’t sound that progressive to me.

          • ArlingtonChick

            I actually don’t understand why the government has to get involved with polygamists or same sex marriages. If one dude wants to deal with more than one chick for the rest of his life and make lots of babies, go for it. (Obviously the sects that are into child brides is NOT COOL. But the ones who are like Sisterwives are fine. At least 4 uteruses contributed to the 20 kids in that family!).

            Banning incest makes sense. It produces ugly people. See the Royal Family, as an example.

          • ArlingtonDuck

            Harry’s pretty hot.

          • Vik

            Steve, you’re for a small government that stays out of the lives of private individuals as long as nobody is hurting or violating eachother’s freedoms, right?

          • MC 703

            Ding ding ding

          • t

            novasteve is mad because he wants to marry his sister.

          • drax

            He can’t find a church that will allow him smoking.

          • TGEoA

            Rastafarians

  • Chris G.

    I look forward to hearing his thoughts on the upcoming SCOTUS battle over Obamacare.

    • drax

      I’m sure he’ll provide an objective, nuanced view that takes into account the fact that the mandate was originally a conservative proposal.

      • ArlingtonChick

        I’m not a fan of Obamacare, but I find the dismissal hilarious and the right result. Thanks for wasting our money, Cooch.

        • novasteve

          ArlingtonChick: The court didn’t even address the merits of his suit. It was dismissed on a procedural basis.

          • ArlingtonChick

            Yeah, I know. That’s why I think the result was correct–Virginia has no standing yet. Had Hudson (the lower court judge) been overturned on the merits, I would not be happy (as I think Obamacare is well beyond the commerce clause).

          • Zoning Victim

            The finding that Virginia cannot ask the federal courts to consider the constitutionality of an opposing set of state-to-federal laws is quite dubious in my opinion. Just ask yourself what will happen if a federal law is passed banning gay-marriage. Because the sates that have passed laws allowing gay-marriage haven’t been injured by the federal law (since a state can be neither gay nor married), it would have no legal recourse to act on its own behalf to challenge the constitutionality of the federal law. That would have the net effect of negating the state’s right to marry gay people and leave the state no legal course of action to fight for the validity of its own sovereignty. Findings like this one always end up cutting both ways in the end, so I’d be careful how ecstatic you get about this.

          • novasteve

            Don’t worry, they’ll make an exception for liberal darling issues.

  • Steve85

    I guess he likes speaking to a group of crickets bc thats all thats going to be there. Stay away!!!!

  • Road Dog

    Excuse me, Mr A.G.

    The large tub of Kool-Aid you ordered is ready for all your young deciples.

    Now we’ll see how committed Young Republican Cult members are to your Messianic Vision.

    • ArlingtonChick

      You guys realize he was an elected official in Northern Virginia before he became the Cooch, right? I mean, that just makes me ashamed to have grown up in Fairfax.

  • OX4

    “He made headlines after filing a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of Virginia on the grounds that forcing people to buy health insurance was unconstitutional, especially since it went against state law.”

    Ehhh…he made headlines, but for all the wrong reasons, my little Repubs. I would encourage you to read the Fourth Circuit’s opinion on Cuccinelli’s little trick, which failed miserably and wasted God only knows how much taxpayer money.

    http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/fourth-circuit-opinion-2.pdf

    • Zoning Victim

      It could only be considered a waste if he had done something that the majority of the people who elected him were opposed to, which is not the case. If you look at the poll numbers either in Virginia or countrywide, the consent of the governed just isn’t there for Obamacare. Furthermore, it is my understanding that they tried to fast-track their case directly to the US Supreme Court, who refused to allow them to fast-track the case, leaving Virginia no choice but to run the gamut of circuit courts before ultimately testing the Constitutionality of the mandate in the Supreme Court, which is unavoidable. So if you’re upset about the money being spend in the lower courts, you have no one to blame other than the Supreme Court for refusing to fast-track a case that everyone knows they’ll eventually have to hear.

      One day, ultra-liberals (a.k.a. socialists) will have to admit that they are the outliers. Here, Wikipedia can help the ultra-liberals on their way toward discovering that:

      “Self-identified liberals are the smallest ideological bloc in the US. They make up about 20% of the American population, with roughly 6% identifying as very liberal.”

      • OX4

        “leaving Virginia no choice but to run the gamut of circuit courts before ultimately testing the Constitutionality of the mandate in the Supreme Court, which is unavoidable”

        Oh, that’s rich. Did you even read the Circuit Court’s decision?

        “Under Virginia’s standing theory, a state could acquire standing to challenge any federal law merely by enacting a statute — even an utterly unenforceable one — purporting to prohibit the application of federal law”

        Cuccinelli claimed that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional because it conflicted with VA state law…the law VA signed the exact same day Obama signed the federal law. Therefore, Coochie had no choice but to file suit? Yea….

        • Zoning Victim

          Yes, I did read it; well enough, in fact, to know that it clearly states that the Virginia bill wasn’t signed into law until the day after Obamacare was signed. I also read previous to that Virginia requested that the Supreme Court fast-track the case to consider the constitutionality of that provision. Did the socialists in America (all of 6% of the population) really think that the constitutionality of a federal provision that forces all Americans to buy a product from private companies would not be constitutionally challenged? Of course not, so complaining about it now is just silly.

          “-a state could acquire standing to challenge any federal law merely by enacting a statute […]”
          Exactly, but the whole issue starts way before that since the powers bestowed to the federal government are “few and defined,” yet hold supremacy. So where is it a defined power of the federal government to force anyone to purchase anything? Where is it written in constitutional law that the lack of commerce is commerce? Where does the Constitution guarantee that healthcare is a right, which is the premise behind Obamacare to begin with? Nowhere; so when the federal government oversteps its bounds, the states have no other recourse other than to sue and challenge the law’s constitutionality. What you are basically advocating for is unlimited federal power over the states. I don’t think you’re going to find much support for the federal government telling the citizens that they have to purchase a product just because they’re alive.

          The only thing that this finding would have done if the Supreme Court hadn’t finally agreed to hear the case challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate would have been do delay the case until the mandate went into effect.

  • SmokeyBear

    Lovin’ the Cooch! Can’t wait to hear how armed, aborted, gay-married, Mexican fetuses are taking all of our defense jobs.

    • dk

      Awesome.

  • Charles

    Very telling – scum Cuccinelli not man enough to talk to kids regardless of party lines.

    • novasteve

      So was it horrible when democrats have their little meetings? Seems Kaine did a lot of these sort of things. Is it wrong for Obama to speak to group of democrats? Is it wrong for Moran do speak to groups of democrats?

      you’ are just outraged that someone who doesn’t share your views dares to speak, and you are outraged that republicans actually live in Arlington.

    • Chris G.

      How do you get that from this? Does doing one preclude the other? Has any bi-partisan group invited him?

  • Smoke_Jaguar4

    “Young Republicans” is relative. In Arlington, the admit anyone under the age of 50. Here’s a picture of their future leaders:
    http://www.arlnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/crowd_815x598.jpg

×

Subscribe to our mailing list