Birther accusation

Though Cuccinelli didn't question Barack Obama's place of birth, he clarified a comment that critics contended was an endorsement of "birther" claims "that President Obama may not have been born in the United States."

When questioned in an interview conducted by an online blogger about the Obama birth certificate controversy, Cuccinelli remarked that "it will get tested in my view when someone -- when he signs a law, and someone is convicted of violating it and one of their defenses will be it's not a law because someone qualified to be President didn't sign it."

On the same day these allegations were made, Cuccinelli released a statement saying that he believed President Barack Obama was born in the United States. He said that in the interview he "was asked a hypothetical legal question, and I gave a hypothetical legal answer in response."

Virginia State Senate (2002-2010)

Cuccinelli was first selected to represent the public in the State Senate when he won the August 2002 special election held to replace Warren Barry, who resigned in order to serve on the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. During his tenure, he operated within the Senate Courts of Justice, Transportation, Local Government, and the Rehabilitation and Social Services committees.

Immigration

On Monday, August 2, 2010, Cuccinelli published an opinion based on an inquest made by State Representative Bob Marshall concerning Prince William County's implementation of a "law that requires police to check the immigration status of everyone they arrest -- but not everyone they come in legal contact with." Virginia's top law enforcer argued that state "law enforcement officers, including conservation officers may, like Arizona police officers, inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested." Cuccinelli noted, however, that, unlike under Arizona's SB 1070, Virginia state law does not require them to do so.

Nearly two weeks after the United States Justice Department filed suit against the state of Arizona over its anti-illegal immigration law, Senate Bill 1070 - The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB 1070), contending that it "interferes with federal immigration responsibilities," Cuccinelli joined eight other Republican state attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in support of the measure. The Virginia Attorney General remarked that he was stunned by the suit considering that "Arizona's law maintains the "joint federal-state cooperative immigration enforcement program" established by Congress," rather then combats it as United States Attorney General Eric Holder contends.

Environment

Cuccinelli announced on February 17, 2010, that he had filed petitions with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. to reverse a finding by the Obama administration that declared carbon dioxide a danger to public health that contributes to global warming. He is one of two state attorneys general, both Republican, openly challenging the Democratic White House on this issue.

In his own state, Cuccinelli used Virginia's "Fraud against Taxpayer's Act," to bring a case against a climate scientist. On March 2, 2013, the Virginia Supreme Court announced that it had sided with the University of Virginia in Cuccinelli's investigation of Michael Mann, a former climate scientist at the University of Virginia. Cuccinelli claimed Mann committed fraud against taxpayers while studying climate change. Cuccinelli believed Mann manipulated his data in order to secure more federal grants. The court ruled first against the language of the law and it's inability to affect state agencies like the university. Supreme Court Justice Leroy Millette wrote "In sum, neither by express language nor by necessary implication does FATA provide the Attorney General with authority to issue CIDs to commonwealth agencies."

Freedom of information laws

In May 2013, it was reported that Cuccinelli believes Virginia's freedom of information laws do not apply to the Office of the Attorney General. While the office has continued to respond to requests for documents under the law, the fulfilled requests began including information saying FOIA does not apply to the office, citing a 2011 Virginia Supreme Court case. The case in question, Christian v. SCC, ruled that since the Virginia State Corporation Commission's authority comes not from the legislature but is created in the Virginia Constitution, it is not considered a "public body" and is therefore exempt from public records law. Senior Assistant Attorney General James E. Schliessmann said that since the Office of the Attorney General is also constitutionally established, it is also exempt from FOIA.

Healthcare reform

One week after the Virginia General Assembly passed a "bill that would make it illegal for the [federal] government to require individuals [within the state] to purchase health insurance," a precautionary measure being considered by thirty-seven other states in case Congressional Democratic leadership in Washington D.C. were able to pass their far-reaching healthcare reform legislation, Cuccinelli announced "Virginia will file suit against the federal government if" the United States House of Representatives passed the Senate version of the healthcare measure, as was expected to occur before the Easter recess

In addition to this, the Virginia Attorney General also issued a letter addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) warning her that if she chose to enact the healthcare reform bill through the use of the "deem and pass" or Slaughter Solution, which would avoid the need for a conventional House vote, more constitutional challenges would be filed by the states, including Virginia. Speaking with Greta Van Susteren on her FOX News program on Thursday, March 18, Cuccinelli said he would appear in court the very next week after President Obama signed the bill if the House used the unconstitutional "deem and pass" rule to enact it. Ultimately, the House decided against using the controversial tactic to pass the Senate's version of the health care bill.

The morning after the United States House of Representatives narrowly passed the Senate reconciliation bill, Cuccinelli said he would follow through with his threat and file suit against the federal government. He was expected to "argue that the bill, with its mandate that requires nearly every American to be insured by 2014, violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution."

After Cuccinelli filed suit in Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebilius on Tuesday, March 23, 2010, the federal government responded by moving to have Cuccinelli's lawsuit dismissed. In a press release, Cuccinelli cited the Tenth Amendment, arguing that Virginia had sovereignty on healthcare policy because the Constitution of the United States did not give the federal government the power to mandate that all citizens purchase a product or service. Thus, Cuccinelli argued, under the Tenth Amendment, the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act should remain sovereign. He added this opinion to his argument based on the Commerce Clause.

The Virginia Attorney General argued not only would the litigation against the federal health care measure cost no more than the $350 legally required filing fee, it could ultimately "save the commonwealth more than $1 billion in estimated costs." The health care overhaul is expected to cost the state of Virginia $1.1 billion over seven years, beginning in 2015, mainly as a result of the new Medicaid requirements, according to estimates calculated by the governor's office.

On Monday, August 2, 2010, the Honorable Henry Hudson, a federal judge for United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, ruled "that the state of Virginia could proceed with its challenge to President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare law." Though refusing to comment on the arguments in the case at this point, Hudson did however note that the issue raised by the states, specifically whether or not the federal government has the authority under the Commerce Clause to force citizens to purchase insurance, had not yet fully been tested in the court system. Furthermore, he stated that he had "not [been] persuaded that the Secretary has demonstrated a failure to state a cause of action with respect to the Commerce Clause element."

On October 18, 2010, the first day the suit was presented before the court, Judge Henry E. Hudson remarked that he would have a decision by the end of the year. However, he also acknowledged that his decision would be "only one brief stop on the way to the United States Supreme Court.”

Nearly two months later, Judge Hudson had reached a decision, ruling that the requirement that all individuals purchase health care coverage under the "individual mandate" exceeded "the constitutional boundaries of congressional power." He rejected the Obama Administration's argument that the federal government has the authority to implement the "individual mandate" under the provisions of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Judge Hudson noted that “same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing or nutritional decisions” and that “this broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation.” In spite of his ruling striking down a key component of the federal health care reform measure, Judge Hudson refused to issue an injunction "stopping implementation of the entire law," noting that the unconstitutional elements of the law could be severed from the whole. But since the "individual mandate" "collects most of the money that is supposed to flow into the system from millions of additional participants," analysts contend, the loss of this portion of the law makes its execution "severely compromised and could rock the foundation of other provisions in the legislation."

State-funded charities

Cuccinelli's office released an advisory opinion in early 2011 regarding state funding for charities, which triggered scrutiny of how to fund charities with tax dollars as they develop criteria to weed through hundreds of nonprofits current receiving state funding.

Eleven agencies were involved in scrutinizing non-contracted services for potential problems. In the Health Department alone, 56 charities were flagged. Of those, 26 had their payments delayed until a formal contract could be drafted, state Secretary of Finance Ric Brown told lawmakers.

State officials were to determine if funding for the three nonprofits — a hospice, a heritage trail and a historical preservation fund — was being lawfully given.

The state Department of Planning and Budget released a mid-review report of the 54 nonprofit organizations and programs slated to receive more than $23 million in 2011 and about $24 million in 2012. The report responds to Cuccinelli’s opinion that charitable giving by the government is unconstitutional.

As of May 20, 2011, 11 charities complied with the Virginia Constitution, while 14 nonprofits were encouraged to draw up contracts with the state for the services provided, according to the report. No opinion was listed for 26 charities, because they did not seek one from the attorney general’s office or did not provide that information to the state Department of Planning and Budget.

Issues

Immigration

On Monday, August 2, 2010, Cuccinelli published an opinion based on an inquest made by State Representative Bob Marshall concerning Prince William County's implementation of a "law that requires police to check the immigration status of everyone they arrest -- but not everyone they come in legal contact with." Virginia's top law enforcer argued that state "law enforcement officers, including conservation officers may, like Arizona police officers, inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested." Cuccinelli noted, however, that, unlike under Arizona's SB 1070, Virginia state law does not require them to do so.

Nearly two weeks after the United States Justice Department filed suit against the state of Arizona over its anti-illegal immigration law, Senate Bill 1070 - The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB 1070), contending that it "interferes with federal immigration responsibilities," Cuccinelli joined eight other Republican state attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in support of the measure. The Virginia Attorney General remarked that he was stunned by the suit considering that "Arizona's law maintains the "joint federal-state cooperative immigration enforcement program" established by Congress," rather then combats it as United States Attorney General Eric Holder contends.

Environment

Cuccinelli announced on February 17, 2010, that he had filed petitions with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. to reverse a finding by the Obama administration that declared carbon dioxide a danger to public health that contributes to global warming. He is one of two state attorneys general, both Republican, openly challenging the Democratic White House on this issue.

In his own state, Cuccinelli used Virginia's "Fraud against Taxpayer's Act," to bring a case against a climate scientist. On March 2, 2013, the Virginia Supreme Court announced that it had sided with the University of Virginia in Cuccinelli's investigation of Michael Mann, a former climate scientist at the University of Virginia. Cuccinelli claimed Mann committed fraud against taxpayers while studying climate change. Cuccinelli believed Mann manipulated his data in order to secure more federal grants. The court ruled first against the language of the law and it's inability to affect state agencies like the university. Supreme Court Justice Leroy Millette wrote "In sum, neither by express language nor by necessary implication does FATA provide the Attorney General with authority to issue CIDs to commonwealth agencies."

Freedom of information laws

In May 2013, it was reported that Cuccinelli believes Virginia's freedom of information laws do not apply to the Office of the Attorney General. While the office has continued to respond to requests for documents under the law, the fulfilled requests began including information saying FOIA does not apply to the office, citing a 2011 Virginia Supreme Court case. The case in question, Christian v. SCC, ruled that since the Virginia State Corporation Commission's authority comes not from the legislature but is created in the Virginia Constitution, it is not considered a "public body" and is therefore exempt from public records law. Senior Assistant Attorney General James E. Schliessmann said that since the Office of the Attorney General is also constitutionally established, it is also exempt from FOIA.

Healthcare reform

One week after the Virginia General Assembly passed a "bill that would make it illegal for the [federal] government to require individuals [within the state] to purchase health insurance," a precautionary measure being considered by thirty-seven other states in case Congressional Democratic leadership in Washington D.C. were able to pass their far-reaching healthcare reform legislation, Cuccinelli announced "Virginia will file suit against the federal government if" the United States House of Representatives passed the Senate version of the healthcare measure, as was expected to occur before the Easter recess

In addition to this, the Virginia Attorney General also issued a letter addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) warning her that if she chose to enact the healthcare reform bill through the use of the "deem and pass" or Slaughter Solution, which would avoid the need for a conventional House vote, more constitutional challenges would be filed by the states, including Virginia. Speaking with Greta Van Susteren on her FOX News program on Thursday, March 18, Cuccinelli said he would appear in court the very next week after President Obama signed the bill if the House used the unconstitutional "deem and pass" rule to enact it. Ultimately, the House decided against using the controversial tactic to pass the Senate's version of the health care bill.

The morning after the United States House of Representatives narrowly passed the Senate reconciliation bill, Cuccinelli said he would follow through with his threat and file suit against the federal government. He was expected to "argue that the bill, with its mandate that requires nearly every American to be insured by 2014, violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution."

After Cuccinelli filed suit in Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebilius on Tuesday, March 23, 2010, the federal government responded by moving to have Cuccinelli's lawsuit dismissed. In a press release, Cuccinelli cited the Tenth Amendment, arguing that Virginia had sovereignty on healthcare policy because the Constitution of the United States did not give the federal government the power to mandate that all citizens purchase a product or service. Thus, Cuccinelli argued, under the Tenth Amendment, the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act should remain sovereign. He added this opinion to his argument based on the Commerce Clause.

The Virginia Attorney General argued not only would the litigation against the federal health care measure cost no more than the $350 legally required filing fee, it could ultimately "save the commonwealth more than $1 billion in estimated costs." The health care overhaul is expected to cost the state of Virginia $1.1 billion over seven years, beginning in 2015, mainly as a result of the new Medicaid requirements, according to estimates calculated by the governor's office.

On Monday, August 2, 2010, the Honorable Henry Hudson, a federal judge for United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, ruled "that the state of Virginia could proceed with its challenge to President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare law." Though refusing to comment on the arguments in the case at this point, Hudson did however note that the issue raised by the states, specifically whether or not the federal government has the authority under the Commerce Clause to force citizens to purchase insurance, had not yet fully been tested in the court system. Furthermore, he stated that he had "not [been] persuaded that the Secretary has demonstrated a failure to state a cause of action with respect to the Commerce Clause element."

On October 18, 2010, the first day the suit was presented before the court, Judge Henry E. Hudson remarked that he would have a decision by the end of the year. However, he also acknowledged that his decision would be "only one brief stop on the way to the United States Supreme Court.”

Nearly two months later, Judge Hudson had reached a decision, ruling that the requirement that all individuals purchase health care coverage under the "individual mandate" exceeded "the constitutional boundaries of congressional power." He rejected the Obama Administration's argument that the federal government has the authority to implement the "individual mandate" under the provisions of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Judge Hudson noted that “same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing or nutritional decisions” and that “this broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation.” In spite of his ruling striking down a key component of the federal health care reform measure, Judge Hudson refused to issue an injunction "stopping implementation of the entire law," noting that the unconstitutional elements of the law could be severed from the whole. But since the "individual mandate" "collects most of the money that is supposed to flow into the system from millions of additional participants," analysts contend, the loss of this portion of the law makes its execution "severely compromised and could rock the foundation of other provisions in the legislation."

State-funded charities

Cuccinelli's office released an advisory opinion in early 2011 regarding state funding for charities, which triggered scrutiny of how to fund charities with tax dollars as they develop criteria to weed through hundreds of nonprofits current receiving state funding.

Eleven agencies were involved in scrutinizing non-contracted services for potential problems. In the Health Department alone, 56 charities were flagged. Of those, 26 had their payments delayed until a formal contract could be drafted, state Secretary of Finance Ric Brown told lawmakers.

State officials were to determine if funding for the three nonprofits — a hospice, a heritage trail and a historical preservation fund — was being lawfully given.

The state Department of Planning and Budget released a mid-review report of the 54 nonprofit organizations and programs slated to receive more than $23 million in 2011 and about $24 million in 2012. The report responds to Cuccinelli’s opinion that charitable giving by the government is unconstitutional.

As of May 20, 2011, 11 charities complied with the Virginia Constitution, while 14 nonprofits were encouraged to draw up contracts with the state for the services provided, according to the report. No opinion was listed for 26 charities, because they did not seek one from the attorney general’s office or did not provide that information to the state Department of Planning and Budget.

Noteworthy events

Birther accusation

Though Cuccinelli didn't question Barack Obama's place of birth, he clarified a comment that critics contended was an endorsement of "birther" claims "that President Obama may not have been born in the United States."

When questioned in an interview conducted by an online blogger about the Obama birth certificate controversy, Cuccinelli remarked that "it will get tested in my view when someone -- when he signs a law, and someone is convicted of violating it and one of their defenses will be it's not a law because someone qualified to be President didn't sign it."

On the same day these allegations were made, Cuccinelli released a statement saying that he believed President Barack Obama was born in the United States. He said that in the interview he "was asked a hypothetical legal question, and I gave a hypothetical legal answer in response."

Cuccinelli was first selected to represent the public in the State Senate when he won the August 2002 special election held to replace Warren Barry, who resigned in order to serve on the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. During his tenure, he operated within the Senate Courts of Justice, Transportation, Local Government, and the Rehabilitation and Social Services committees.

Issues

Abortion

As a state senator, Cuccinelli sponsored a number of pro-life/anti-abortion legislative measures designed to discourage the medical practice, including a requiring doctors to anesthetize fetuses after the first trimester and requiring physicians who perform abortions on pregnant girls 15 years old or younger to preserve the fetal tissue for the purpose of determining whether the pregnancy is the result of criminal behavior.

Later, during the course of his 2009 campaign for Attorney General, he received the endorsement of the Republican National Coalition for Life.

Gun control

During his tenure as a member of the State Legislature, he sponsored several anti-gun control measures, including bills repealing the state prohibition on carrying a concealed handgun in a restaurant or club and recognizing concealed handgun permits or licenses issued by another state.

For these and other actions, Cuccinelli received the endorsement of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in his 2009 campaign for Attorney General.

Immigration

In the Virginia General Assembly, Cuccinelli introduced a measure calling upon the United States Congress to call for a constitutional convention to amend the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution to revoke the citizenship rights for children of illegal aliens born on United States soil in addition to a bill making an employee's inability or refusal to speak English at the workplace, in violation of a known policy of the employer, to be constituted as misconduct and disqualify that individual from receiving unemployment compensation benefits from Virginia Employment Commission (VEC).

State song

On January 30, 2006, Cuccinelli filed an amendment to a bill to designate the official state song as "Taxman" by the Beatles. He said his constituents would feel a connection to the song as "they feel like all they ever get from Richmond is more taxes." The amendment was not taken up for consideration.