; STATE SOVEREIGN STANDING: OFTEN OVERLOOKED, BUT NOT FORGOTTEN
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

STATE SOVEREIGN STANDING: OFTEN OVERLOOKED, BUT NOT FORGOTTEN

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 37

Critics of Virginia's challenge to the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have asserted that Virginia lacked standing to even raise the issue. Such criticism is inconsistent with foundational understandings of the role of states in providing a check on federal power and with the modern standing jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, especially as reflected in the Court's decisions regarding a state's sovereign interest in defending its code of laws. This Article demonstrates that, as a matter of constitutional design and history, as well as under relevant precedents, Virginia clearly had and has standing to bring its challenge. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

More Info
  • pg 1
									      STATE SOVEREIGN STANDING: OFTEN
      OVERLOOKED, BUT NOT FORGOTTEN
    Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II,* E. Duncan Getchell, Jr.** &
                 Wesley G. Russell, Jr.***
           Critics of Virginia’s challenge to the constitutionality of the Patient Protec-
      tion and Affordable Care Act have asserted that Virginia lacked standing to even
      raise the issue. Such criticism is inconsistent with foundational understandings of
      the role of states in providing a check on federal power and with the modern
      standing jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, especially as reflected in the
      Court’s decisions regarding a state’s sovereign interest in defending its code of
      laws. This Article demonstrates that, as a matter of constitutional design and his-
      tory, as well as under relevant precedents, Virginia clearly had and has standing
      to bring its challenge.

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 90
I. VIRGINIA V. SEBELIUS: VIRGINIA’S CLAIM OF SOVEREIGN INJURY ...................... 91
II. REFEREEING DISPUTES BETWEEN CO-SOVE
								
To top
;