Louisiana v. Bryson et al
MARSHALL JOINS U.S. SUPREME COURT BRIEF ALLEGING MISUSE OF CENSUS
Alleges Obama Administration Is Violating Constitution, Laws in Counting Illegal Aliens

Del. Bob Marshall (R, 13th) has joined in a “friend of the court” brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting Louisiana’s effort to file a “fast track” lawsuit challenging the Obama Administration’s decision to count millions of illegal aliens in the 2010 national census.

Louisiana state officials contend that their state unconstitutionally and unlawfully lost a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives because data from the 2010 Census was used that includes non-resident immigrants living illegally in the United States.

“This case strikes at the very heart of the representative government we Americans hold dear,” Marshall said. “Our Constitution and our laws don’t grant equal representation to those who come here illegally and flagrantly violate that same Constitution and those same laws.”

Louisiana officials argue that counting illegal aliens in the census favors states with high numbers of undocumented immigrants living illegally within their borders, thus shifting political power by skewing population-based apportionment of the House’s 435 seats among the 50 states.

Census data also is the basis for apportioning congressional, legislative and local voting districts within states, as well as distributing federal grants to states and localities, and allocating states’ votes for president in the Electoral College, which will decide whether Obama wins another White House term in the Nov. 6 general election.

Technically, Louisiana officials are invoking a provision in the Constitution allowing them to bypass lower federal courts to file the lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court because of time constraints regarding this year’s fast-approaching congressional primary and general elections.

Listed with Marshall in the Supreme Court brief are 12 non-profit social welfare and educational organizations and foundations; state legislators from Oklahoma, Maryland, Washington State and Wyoming; and Montana candidates for governor and lieutenant governor.

The brief was filed Friday [Jan. 13] by Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson of a Vienna, Va., law firm specializing in constitutional law.  Titus was founding dean of Regent University’s School of Law in Virginia Beach. Olson is a former chairman of the Fairfax County Republican Committee.

Defendants in the lawsuit are U.S. Secretary of Commerce John Bryson, U.S. Census Director Robert Groves, and House Clerk Karen Lehman Haas.

• • •
Delegate Bob Marshall’s contact information:

• Mobile telephone – (703) 853-4213
• Capitol telephone – (804) 698-1013 (during General Assembly sessions)
• E-mail addresses – delegatebob@gmail.com and bob@delegatebob.com
• www.delegatebob.com
• www.youtube.com/user/delegatebobmarshall
• www.twitter.com/RobertGMarshall
• www.facebook.com/delegatebob

Del. Bob Marshall tonight (Wednesday, Dec. 7) accused Tim Kaine, the Democrats’ presumptive 2012 candidate for the U.S. Senate, of mounting a “skewed attack on my personhood bill” in tonight’s early-bird Senate debate in Richmond.

“After seeing Tim Kaine’s skewed attack on my personhood bill (HB1), it is obvious he is very confused,” Marshall (R., 13th District) said.

“First of all, we tell third graders in Virginia’s public schools that human life begins at fertilization or conception.  Scientists have definitively known when human life begins since at least the 1830’s. Why not Tim Kaine?

“Tim Kaine, a Harvard-educated attorney, claims that my personhood bill, HB 1, will outlaw birth control. The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with Tim Kaine, because it upheld almost identical language in a Missouri statute from the 1980’s, 25 years ago, in the Webster v. Missouri case.

“None of the parade of horribles predicted today by Tim Kaine occurred when abortion was illegal, such as homicide prosecutions for women who abort their children or making miscarriages manslaughter.  My measure passed the House of Delegates earlier this year, 62-36. Virginia’s entire press corps apparently slept through the legal earthquake Tim Kaine predicted would follow passage of my bill most likely because his claims are not true.

“My personhood bill creates a civil cause of action for the wrongful death of an unborn child.  This cause of action already exists in the majority of states and is a natural complement to Virginia’s fetal homicide law. “Does Tim Kaine object to providing a legal remedy for parents whose beloved unborn baby is killed by the negligent or criminal act of a third party?  Does anyone other than Tim Kaine really think that is a bad idea?

“Tim Kaine wants to serve in the US Senate.  But if he refuses to understand the meaning of a simple seven line bill, what would he do in Washington as a Senator with bills longer than a single page?  We already have enough people in Washington who vote on bills without ever reading them.”
Marshall’s HB1, prefiled for the Virginia General Assembly’s 2012 session and co-patroned by State Sen. Charles Colgan (D., 29th District), is summarized by the General Assembly’s Legislative Information Service as follows:

“Rights of unborn children. Provides that unborn children at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the Commonwealth, subject only to the laws and constitutions of Virginia and the United States, precedents of the United States Supreme Court, and provisions to the contrary in the statutes of the Commonwealth.”

• • •

While the Federal Fourth Circuit acknowledged that “Congress has imposed a potentially ‘harsh regime’ on some taxpayers,” which poses questions of “unusual legal, economic and political significance,” it still held that neither states such as Virginia, nor citizens may legally challenge the imposition of a congressional statute which Congress’ own Research Service concludes has no precedent in American history.*

The three federal judges appointed by Presidents Obama and Clinton claim that “a state has no interest in the rights of its individual  citizens sufficient to justify such an invasion of federal sovereignty.”  (Virginia v. Sebelius)

It also dismissed individual Virginia citizens’ challenge (Liberty University v. Geithner) to the novelties of ObamaCare when the court inexplicably mischaracterized health insurance premiums paid to private companies as a tax.

Founding Father, and Federalist Paper author Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to both the Constitutional Convention and the ratifying convention in New York, affirmed states have the constitutional right to file suits in federal court to protect citizens.  In my Fourth Circuit amicus brief I noted:

“… state legislatures will always be: ‘not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens, against encroachments from the Federal government [who] will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rules and will be ready enough, if anything improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people and not only to be the VOICE but if necessary the ARM of their discontent.’ [A. Hamilton, Federalist No. 26, G. Carey & J. McClellan, edts., The Federalist, p. 134 (1990) (capitalization original, bold added).  See also A. Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, p. 141.]”

On April 4, 2011, I filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit which was joined in by several organizations on behalf of their members.  The panel’s opinion paid no attention to the authorities in that brief (at page 4), including my reliance on Virginia James Madison’s view of the essential role of the state legislatures under the U.S. Constitution, a matter with which America’s “Father of the Constitution” had some familiarity:  http://lawandfreedom.com/site/health/VA_v_Sebelius_Amicus.pdf

The role of the federal judiciary, in confronting Congressional and Presidential fidelity or departure from the Constitution, was made clear to the People during the ratification debates.

“[I]n the case Congress shall misconstrue … part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning … the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts….” [J. Madison, Federalist No. 44, Id., p. 233.]

Even recent decisions of the Supreme Court have recognized the validity of dual sovereignty, residing both in the states and federal government.

Moreover, the panel ignored the Commonwealth’s enactment of the bill of which I was Chief Patron, the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act.  The judges believed it irrelevant that the Democratic Virginia Senate and Republican Virginia House of Delegates enacted a law signed by the Governor, which established that the individual mandate could not be constitutionally imposed on Virginians.

For citizens to place confidence in the decisions of federal courts, the People must have confidence that the federal judiciary bases its decision in the text and original meaning of the U.S. Constitution, and not just in prior judicial decisions which may have departed from that text.  The panel failed to do this and failed to even acknowledge that they understand the Founders’ original intent as expressed authoritatively by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.

Of course, while I am disappointed, the panel’s opinion also disregarded other briefs against Obamacare filed by distinguished Americans such as former Attorney General Edwin Meese.

I urge Ken Cuccinelli, the distinguished Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, to promptly seek a review of the panel’s opinion by the entire Fourth Circuit, or by the U.S. Supreme Court, as he deems appropriate.  There appears to be no reason to seek reconsideration by this panel which has strayed so far from the text of the Constitution in these decisions.

It would be unfortunate if politics had any part in this decision.  The Fourth Circuit panel was truly remarkable, for it included only judges appointed by Democratic Presidents — including two new judges who had only recently been appointed by President Obama:  Andre M. Davis of Maryland and James A. Wynn, Jr. of North Carolina.  Diana Gribbon Motz of Maryland was appointed by President Clinton.

*************************************************************************
*Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius (Motz 09/08/2011), and http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/102347.P.pdf Liberty University v. Timothy Geithner (Motz 09/08/2011).  http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/102347.P.pdf

What did we say to the Court of Appeals that was not already said by the Attorney General?
The Attorney General’s basic argument was that Obamacare’s mandate that every American purchase a health insurance policy or plan approved by the bureaucrats was unconstitutional and, therefore, the entire Obamacare statute was unconstitutional. As you know in the district court the Attorney General won only the first argument — that the individual mandate was unconstitutional — leaving the rest of it in place.

Our strategy was different. We argued that Obamacare in its entirety was unconstitutional and for that reason the individual mandate was unconstitutional. If our point is upheld, then all of Obamacare — not just the individual mandate — is unconstitutional.

What did we argue that the Attorney General did not?

• First, we contended that Obamacare is NOT a constitutional regulation governing commerce in which private businesses and individuals are engaged — but a constitutionally-impermissible government take-over in which the government itself is engaged in the health care and wellness business.
• Second, we demonstrated how Obamacare is actually designed to work — with the Secretary of Health and Human Services functioning as if she were a CEO of a large corporation, making management and control decisions, rather than government regulatory ones.
• Third – we presented to the court evidence that during the budget reconciliation process by which Obamacare became law, the Obama administration slipped in a public option enabling the government to go into the health insurance business and more favorable terms than any private insurer.

Did we make any Tenth Amendment claim different from the one made by the Attorney General?
We supported the Attorney General’s contention that matters concerning the health and welfare of the people of Virginia belong to the Commonwealth and have not been delegated to the United States government. We added, however, that Obamacare forces individuals to pay for one kind of healthcare shutting out millions of Americans who rely upon alternative medicine — such a homeopathy, acupuncture, herbal medicine, and dietary supplements — thereby robbing those individuals of their unalienable right to health care and wellness of their own choosing — in violation of the Tenth Amendment which secures not just the powers of the states, but the power of the people.

How did we address the technical legal point that the Federal government has made — that the Attorney General has no right to bring this case into court?
We urged the Court to go back to first principles of Original Intent as documented in founding documents like the Federalist Papers rather than rely on case precedents. So we called attention to the Federalist papers which establishes the following premises without a doubt that:

• First, the state government has a right to intervene on behalf of its citizens — not as parens patriae — but as covenant-bound to her sovereign citizens to defend them against an out-of-bounds federal government
• Second, that federal courts have a duty to apply relevant principles of constitutional law that govern the distribution of power between the federal and state and to do so without partiality.

For further information contact Delegate Bob Marshall, 703-853-4213.

###

MARSHALL HAILS RULING HOLDING HEALTH CARE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Del. Bob Marshall is hailing today’s U.S. District Court decision in a Virginia lawsuit declaring that the controversial federal health care reform law violates the United States Constitution.

“Judge Hudson’s ruling thwarts a power grab by the Obama Administration and Congress to extend their insidious reach further into our private lives,” Marshall (R., 13th) said.

“Clearly, Judge Hudson understands that the federal government can’t have it both ways in enforcing the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. It makes no sense, legally or otherwise, to expand federal authority over participating in interstate commerce to include those of us who choose not to participate.”

The federal law compels American citizens to contract for health insurance they do not want, do not need, or find morally objectionable. Persons who decline to buy the coverage face fines and imprisonment.

Marshall noted that Judge Hudson’s decision makes it virtually certain that the United States Supreme Court will take up the issue. Federal district judges in several other states already have issued contrary rulings. The Supreme Court usually hears cases in which judges in different federal districts issue conflicting decisions.

Early this year, Marshall, who represents Prince William and Loudoun Counties, was the principal House of Delegates patron of HB 10, the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act exempting state residents from the federal law. Marshall’s bill was passed by overwhelming votes in both houses of the General Assembly and was signed into law by Gov. Bob McDonnell.

HB 10 directly confronts Congress and President Obama on the issue of compelling American citizens to buy health insurance. It gave Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli the legal standing he needed to file the Commonwealth’s lawsuit on which Judge Hudson ruled today.

“The threat of heavy fines and jail time for failure to buy Obamacare health insurance is a power grab without practical limits and has no precedent in American history,” Marshall said. “It undermines our constitutional form of government, and is an affront to free men and women.”

“I introduced HB 10 to ensure a direct confrontation with Congress and President Obama on the federal health care law. I wanted Virginia to get into this very important fight, not avoid it.”

• • •

CONTACT: Bob Marshall, 703-853-4213 (cell) or 703-368-6306 (home)

Click here to read the court’s full opinion in PDF format.

Click on the play button below to listen to Del. Marshall’s Audio statement.

For Immediate Release

Manassas, VA- Delegate Bob Marshall sent the attached memorandum to all Virginia Sheriff’s Departments concerning his recent inquiries into Virginia’s legal presence laws. After sending this memo to the Sheriffs it came to his attention that the Virginia American Civil Liberties Union had sent the attached letter to all Sheriff’s Departments today urging them to ignore the Attorney General’s recently issued opinion.

“I cannot understand why the ACLU would encourage law enforcement officers to ignorethe Attorney General’s opinion. The Attorney General is the highest ranking law enforcement official in Virginia,” said Marshall. “The ACLU’s position essentially allows alien terrorists and gang members to be untouchable in this country. We cannot allow this to continue.”

DOWNLOAD the LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMORANDUM – Sherriff’s & Pollice Departments-Legal Status Law-1

If you have any questions please contact Delegate Marshall at (703) 853-4213.

###

For Immediate Release

HB 10 Lawsuit Will Proceed

Manassas, VA- The Virginia lawsuit against the Federal Healthcare Mandate stemming from Delegate Bob Marshall’s HB 10 and other similar legislation has survived the Federal Government’s motion to dismiss and the lawsuit will proceed.

“There may be other bumps along the way but this is a huge victory towards the cause of freedom in this country,” said Marshall.

Also of great interest was one of the last paragraphs in the judge’s ruling which stated in part,

“While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate- and tax- a citizen’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit of appeals has squarely addressed this issue. No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce. Given the presence of some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side’s position, this court cannot conclude at this stage that the complaint fail to state a cause of action.

The secretary’s motion to dismiss will therefore be denied. Resolution of the controlling issues in this case must await a hearing on the merits.”

“The ultimate decision in this case will have lasting effects on our country, its citizen’s liberty and our system of government. I am encouraged by this ruling and will continue to do all I can to work with the Attorney General on this case,” said Marshall.

If you have any questions please contact Delegate Marshall at (703) 853-4213.

###

I never made this statement. I believe that all children, no matter their background are a blessing from the Lord, not a punishment. Capital News Service never called me about these alleged comments.

No other reporter who attended the same February 18th press conference regarding Planned Parenthood funding made the same claim for the simple reason that I never made such a statement about disabled children.

A video of the press conference bears this out. (May be accessed in its entirety at the end of this article)

Furthermore, my personal and public life show a respect for unwanted or disabled children, including our adoption of three children, my bills to provide for health insurance for autistic children, and my bill this year requiring that women be informed of possible problems in future pregnancies from abortion.

I acknowledge that my extemporary remarks could have been better chosen to explain the medical research findings which show a high incidence of complications following induced abortions.

I understand how disability groups could react, but they are reacting in part to words I never said, never meant, and don’t believe. But I apologize to all for the misuse of my words especially to disabled Virginians or others offended.

My purpose was to show how authentic medical findings demonstrate that abortion has consequences beyond the death of the child being aborted. That is why I have proposed HB 334, which passed the House of Delegates 95-2, and which requires women undergoing abortion to be offered medical articles concerning possible complications in future pregnancies.

I take my oath of office seriously, and believe it is important to protect my constituents by ensuring full transparency about a procedure that may adversely impact their future reproductive health. That is why I strongly believe that Planned Parenthood, which performs one-fourth of abortions nationwide and opposes protecting women with this vital information, should not be funded by Virginia taxpayers.

Children, whether wanted or unwanted, intended or unintended, “normal” or disabled, are blessings from a loving God, and I will continue to fight on their behalf and on behalf of the courageous families who care for these wonderful children.

Fighting for you,

Delegate Bob Marshall
13th District Delegate

VIDEO:

FULL TRANSCRIPT:
Verbatim. The TRT is 2:05:

“Thank you very much for coming here today. We are dealing with an attempt to defund, frankly, a malevolent organization. And I say that because you know people by their fruits. In 1960, 65, the out of wed-lock birthrate for blacks was 25 percent. I think it was about 23 percent in 1960 – it was 5 percent for all races. Now it’s 40 percent. It’s 72% for blacks, 51% for Latinas. These are the fruits of planned parenthood. OK. Nothing else. More heartache. More guys who are completely irresponsible and think that women have one function and one function only for a few minutes. OK. But this just isn’t affecting our families, our inner cities, our communities and our state. This poison animates a world-wide population control program that the United States funds and which is unnecessarily making us enemies overseas. We are attacking traditional family structure in a way that no country should be doing. These aren’t my words. Go read a book by Denesh DeSouza. Ok. He’s looking at it from a cultural, historical perspective. This organization should be called Planned Barrenhood cause they have nothing to do with families, they have nothing to do with responsibility. One-fourth of all abortions are done by Planned Parenthood in the United States. Ok. The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion who have handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first-born of any, Nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children. In the Old Testament, the first-born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest, and with the knowledge they have from faith has been verified by a study by the Virginia Commonwealth University.  First abortions of the first pregnancy are much more damaging to the woman than latter abortions. None of these are good for anybody but this organization has had its time. They have failed in their efforts and we need to defund them and not have them receive a dime of public money.”