What follows below is the February 8th Edition of the Cuccinelli Compass from from our new Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli. This is funny one! Apparently, one of the advertisements at the Super Bowl caused some people to do a double take. I am one of the few who did not watch the Super Bowl, but I have been hearing about it anyway.
This Compass also contains a sad story. When the men and women we elect are guilty of trying to subvert the laws we supposedly elected them to defend, we have a serious moral problem.
February 8, 2010
Dear Fellow Virginians,
As I look out the window at 30+ inches of global snowing, I have been thinking back to our campaign.
Remember when we were attacked for not “believing” (that’s the word they used) in man-made global warming? It’s too bad climate-gate didn’t break before our campaign ended. It would have been interesting watching all the “believers” on the other side explain their “beliefs” in light of those strange and flinty things that John Adams called “facts.”
That’s just somewhat amusing (more amusement below). How about this one…
Do you remember when they said that we would interpret or apply the laws however we wanted to regardless of what the law really said? Let’s take a closer look at this attack in light of just the first few weeks of our tenure.
Eco-funny … or not-so-funny…
For those of you that missed the Super Bowl, you need to watch the following Audi ad. I know that they meant it to be funny, but I think it’s causing quite a different stir than was anticipated.
Take a look:
I don’t even think I need to say anything about that one…
p.s., the incandescent bulb infraction? That’s coming your way in 2012 thanks to the U.S. Congress, as they have made incandescent light bulbs illegal. So, stock up now!
Reflecting Back On Three Weeks + On the Campaign
You will recall that during the campaign one of the many baseless attacks – though perhaps one of the most consistent on the other side – was the notion that a Cuccinelli AG’s office would interpret the law to mean whatever we wanted it to mean.
Now, before I go too far analyzing this, I will also remind all of you that in the very same breath, my opponent also ‘accused’ me of being a – gasp – originalist!
In case you’re not a lawyer or you’re not seeing the irony of the last paragraph, an originalist interprets the Constitution (and the laws) based on the original intent of the provision at issue at the time it was passed. If I were to actually interpret and apply the law in such a way, it would preclude me from ever simply concluding that the law means whatever I would like it to mean. Whoops.
Now, to the last few weeks. At the end of January, my office was asked by the Governor’s office to review a proposed regulation being advanced by the Kaine administration that would have nominally allowed anyone who lived in a household with a state employee to be put on their state health insurance.
Then-Governor Kaine knew very well that such a proposal flies in the face of Virginia law and policy, but he pressed ahead anyway.
To ‘ease’ his way, Kaine REMOVED the AG’s office from having any responsibilities for reviewing proposed regulations. There are several problems with this maneuver by Kaine. First and foremost, it is specifically contrary to the law (Va. Code §2.2-4013). Second, the maneuver was undertaken because they knew exactly what the legal advice that either of my predecessors would have provided and they didn’t like it, so they didn’t ask for it. Third, the reason Kaine removed the AG from the regulatory review process is because he knew full well that what he was doing was illegal, but he pressed ahead with his own desired view of what he wanted the law to say. Does that sound familiar?
That was the attack against us, i.e., that we would apply the law in whatever way we wanted to. Ironically, it was the Democrats that were making that attack that were – in fact – trying to enact a regulation based solely on what they wanted the law to be.
Rank hypocrisy. And by the way, does anyone seriously think that had my opponent won the AG’s race, that he would have done anything to question Kaine’s single-handed regulatory re-write of Virginia law?
I’ll leave you with that thought to ponder, though it probably won’t take much pondering…
See you soon!
Ken Cuccinelli II