Losing Weight Dangers You Should Know About

Losing Weight Dangers are real. This mean you should be conscious of these.

Side Effects from Diet Pills

Diet Pills Look Cool. They are at some level. But they might kill you. Common complications include :

  • heart rate disorder
  • stomach trouble such as nausea
  • higher blood pressure levels
  • nervous agitation, emotional unrest and even paranoia
  • Read beyond marketing verbiage, reach beyond unqualified advice and OTC/Internet Buying easiness.
  • Take only medically approved pills like Phen24
  • Particularly avoid diuretic pills because their Losing Weight effect is ILLUSORY (very short term). They cause dehydratation and kidney problems which can be really serious.
  • Understand that pills should only be use if they fit to your case and with real medical advice, I’m no kidding, people died of this.

Really Stupid  Practices

In a world that presses hard, not everyone seeks noor founds good advice. And stupid practices lead to disasters everyday.

  • Do Not Drop Meals. Ever. This practice in fact has the reverse effect of making you taking weight, and repeating might lead to severe impacts on your body.
  • Take Medical Advice. Do not belief the thousands con artists of Diet Marketing, nor believe such a real undertaking should be taken lightly by yourself.
  • Your Teen-Age Kate-Moss-Would-Be practice of vomiting is Total, Definitive and Useless CRAP. Same for other anorexia practices, such as taking Laxatives or using Ipecac Syrup. Those trap you in a deformed image of yourself that favors ill-being and further anorexia, and other serious health trouble, setting up your metabolism to take more weight instead of losing weight.

Nutrients Deficiency

The power of this nutrient, the bad effects of this one, the miracle findings of Doctor Whatever on the effects of this other nutrient… They all miss the big picture.

By orienting our diet, we generally take less of the nutrients required for an healthy and well-being bearing life.

There are good Carbohydrates and Fats. A deficit of these would bring you of cancer, brain starvation, osteoporosis, and so on.

  • Maintain Variery in the things you eat

Abuse of Good Ideas

Some really efficient Options that actually help your Losing Weight can be harmful if you abuse them !

  • Do not starve yourself into exhaustion or worse (in fact, not eating as a final result of taking more weight). Watch at how tiring your Losing Weight turns out to be.
  • Do not exercise go beyond your exhaustion limits. Some really painful and serious injuries might result.

Make your Losing Weight a well-informed and well-thought undertaking. It will make it way easier, secure, incredibly more enjoyable,  and it will make your results really worthy.

Easy Diets – No Surrender Weight Loss

If you are frustrated about the weight you gained this year and looked online for easy diets there are over four million sites you can visit. It seems everyone has an easy diet to show you. So before you jump into this pool of words, let’s step back and see what it is you are really looking for.

The word “easy” can mean different things depending on the circumstances. If you have only 5 pounds to lose in order to wear certain clothing to an event two weeks away, there can be a quick and easy answer. “Easy” takes on a different meaning if you have been carrying around an extra 30 pounds for over a year and the doctor advises you to lose weight with PhenQ. Easy can be defined as something that requires little effort or thought and is not difficult to endure or undergo.

Let’s go back to the 5 pounds to comfortably fit into certain clothing. It’s easy, significantly reduce the amount of sugar and salt you eat, reduce meal portion size, stay away from fast food, and you should be able to lose those five pounds and maybe a few more within two weeks. Done, no problem, except when you go back to your regular eating habits you will gain back all you lost plus some.

The 30 pound scenario becomes a little more involved. But the same principle is true, eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Good nutrition is important and, if you want to maintain a healthy weight, you must do physical exercise on a regular basis.

Speaking of healthy, it is recommended that you get checked out by your doctor before beginning any weight loss or exercise program. Don’t run the risk of potential health issues or injuries by skipping this point.

There are many fad diets that people try, often times moving from one diet to another in an attempt to reach their weight loss goals. Let’s take a quick look at some:

The Fat Burning Breakfast

We are told by many sources that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Many people actually skip breakfast, or have just a piece of toast along with a sip of juice and a gulp of coffee. There are foods that provide good nutrition and help you burn calories. Unfortunately what many people consider a good breakfast consists of processed grains and sweets. This works in the opposite direction by adding fat and calories.

The Low Carb Diet

Reducing the amount of carbohydrates you eat results in your body producing less insulin which makes it a lot easier for your body to process the sugars you do eat. You will lose weight, but the main concern is about getting balanced nutrition. Carbs play a significant role in the health of our body and should be a part of a well structured diet.

South Beach Diet

I can write about this one from personal experience. There is no question; if you strictly follow the directions of this diet you will lose weight. It worked for me, but, yes I gained it all back…and some. The sticking point was there wasn’t a lot of flexibility in what you could eat. There are only two or three foods I don’t care for but I found this diet too restrictive for me.

The key to “easy diets” is in your mindset. When you discover a proven diet plan that makes sense to you, where you find flexibility and feel that you have some control over the direction you are going, it becomes an easy diet.n.

What is the difference between Graphic and Website Designer?

Did you know millions of people are hiring a professional for the website designing tasks? If you want to create a website, then you have to hire a professional for SEO and Designing tasks. All things start from the website designing. Therefore, you should hire a professional designer for the task. However, if you want to promote your business via posters, Flyers then you should hire a professional for it. With the help of a Graphic designer, one will grab high-quality poster at cheaper worth.  Graphic and website designer both are quite important for every business.

If you want to run a successful business, then a professional designer is mandatory for you. As per professionals, most of the designers are versatile because they are creating a designer for website and flyers. Let’s discuss the main difference between Graphic and Website Designer.

Benefits of Website Designer

Nothing is better than website designer that will assist you in promoting the business. You should always look out a professional website designer. Let’s discuss the benefits of a website designer.

  • Current Marketing strategies

Nowadays, most of the professional website designers are making the use of the latest marketing tricks on the website. Is it reliable or not? It is really beneficial because they are saving the cost of promotions and time. Like, you don’t have to spend money on the flyers and other posters. However, you should visit https://designful.ca and grab more information about website design.

  • website speed

Along with the website designer, they are working hard on the website speed. After hiring a professional website designer, you will able to witness some improvement in the speed of the page.

After choosing the professional website designer, you will grab above-mentioned potential benefits.

Graphic designer

Nowadays, it would be quite difficult a company who aren’t hiring a graphic designer. It is really beneficial because they are creating the high-quality flyers and brochures at the cheaper worth.

  • High-quality Flyer designer

If you are hiring an experienced designer, then you will get a high-quality flyer at discounted worth. The best thing is that they will deliver the brochures at the perfect time.

  • Increase the awareness

If you are promoting your business via flyers or brochures, then you will able to increase the awareness of your brand with ease.

Moving further, both designers are quite important for the business.

Will Congress Help Families of Servicemen Killed By Iranian Terrorism



UPDATE: The committee approved the special language assisting the families by a unanimous voice vote on February 2. The language was changed last night to limit its application to Iran, and not to the other designated state sponsors, in order to more easily enact and implement the change in banking law.

In 1983, an Iranian suicide agent exploded a massive truck bomb, destroying a U.S military barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. The blast killed 241 American Marines, soldiers and sailors and injured hundreds more. The mass murder was a brutal, unprovoked attack on American servicemen. It also was a terrorist assault on the United States by the most active sponsor of State terrorism in the world, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Over 1000 family members of the victims exercised their constitutional right to hold Iran accountable and sued in U.S. courts for that vicious attack. In 2007, the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found Iran liable for the Beirut bombing. He ordered it to pay $2.65 billion to the surviving victims and families. The families’ attorneys identified an account of Iranian funds, laundered through Europe into the U.S. and stashed in an account at a bank in New York City, and the judge froze that account in order to satisfy the judgment.

But central banks of countries are granted immunity from attachment, even if the central bank is of a state sponsor of terrorism. The Iranian central bank has already notified a federal court in NYC of its intent to file a motion to lift the attachment. Absent special legislation, the order freezing the account could be lifted, and Iran could regain the funds in the account for use in its nuclear proliferation and terrorism activities.

So the families have turned to Congress to ask for legislation that would
clarify that state central banks of terrorist states (Iran, Cuba, Sudan and North Korea) forfeit the immunity when their assets are surreptitiously laundered into the United States through money laundering jurisdictions. The bill language would affect only the central banks of the four state sponsors of terrorism, when they are caught surreptitiously laundering assets through the U.S. financial system.

On Thursday, the Senate Banking Committee will act on S. 1048, the Senate version of a bill designed to impose new sanctions on Iran. The House approved their version of this bill in December. The families are asking the Banking Committee to add the special language described above to the bill prior to action by the full Senate. I have been working with the families as a paid consultant as they seek justice through the enactment of this special legislation.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is opposed to the families’ effort, apparently concerned that other countries might refuse to invest their funds in the U.S. or treat the Federal Reserve similarly. The families responded in a press release on Monday. Spokesperson Lynn Derbyshire, whose brother was killed in the attacks, said, “Everyone agrees that the most effective way to hold Iran accountable, short of war, is to deliver a blow to its government finances. The Obama Administration has been encouraging other nations to impose economic sanctions on Iran. Incredibly, however, it is opposing a clear and effective way to take $2.65 billion out of the Iranian financial system and directly punish Iran for a specific act of terrorism Iran would like America to forget.”

The families deserve some measure of justice and the Congress must act to prevent Iran from accessing the $2+ billion in frozen funds. Hopefully the Senate Banking Committee will ignore the Obama Administration and add the special language to the Iran sanctions bill.

Quote of the Day Cato Institute Slams Caps on Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Awards



Reducing physician liability for negligent care by capping court awards, all else equal, will reduce the resources allocated to medical professional liability underwriting and oversight and make many patients worse off. Legislators who see mandatory liability caps as a cost-containment tool should look elsewhere.”

That’s the conclusion of a new study released by the most respected libertarian think tank in Washington, declaring that capping medical malpractice damages is a very bad idea for consumers, and further declaring that awards in medmal lawsuits aren’t excessive compared to actual damages. This study will rock the AMA’s world, even as it continues to press Congress for special protection through an unconstitutional limit on awards in all health care-related cases. The study wasn’t conducted by trial lawyers or a bunch of liberals, but by an academic for the Cato Institute, which has lots of fans among the new House Republican majority and among the GOP Senate minority.

Read it yourself and send it to your favorite tort reform proponents. Here are selections from the Executive Summary:

Supporters of capping court awards for medical malpractice argue that caps will make health care more affordable. It may not be that simple. First, caps on awards may result in some patients not receiving adequate compensation for injuries they suffer as a result of physician negligence. Second, because caps limit physician liability, they can also mute incentives for physicians to reduce the risk of negligent injuries

This paper reviews an existing body of work that shows that medical malpractice awards do track actual damages. Furthermore, this paper provides evidence that medical malpractice insurance carriers use various tools to reduce the risk of patient injury, including experience rating of physicians’ malpractice premiums. High-risk physicians face higher malpractice insurance premiums than their less-risky peers

In particular, caps on damages would reduce physicians’ and carriers’ incentives to keep track of and reduce practice risk. Laws that shield government-employed physicians from malpractice liability eliminate insurance company oversight of physicians working for government agencies

There’s even more in the body of the study, such as:

Some observers are skeptical that medical malpractice awards are the driving force behind excessive tests and procedures, claiming that physicians deliver these services because they are risk-averse, to please patients, or to generate additional income rather than to avoid liability.

Furthermore, defensive medicine is not necessarily undesirable. A well-functioning malpractice system would not eliminate defensive medicine. Rather, it would discourage the use of inefficient defensive medicine, where the expected costs of a test or treatment exceed the expected benefits, and promote efficient defensive medicine, where expected benefits exceed expected costs.

Opponents of damage caps rightly point out that caps shift the costs of malpractice injuries from negligent providers to their victims.

The study recounts the moving story of a tort reform lobbyist who became the victim of his success in capping damages after he had suffered from medical negligence, and later wrote, “Make no mistake, damage caps… remove the only effective deterrent to negligent medical care.”

It also slams state medical boards for letting bad doctors continue to practice. “State medical boards do a poor job of informing the public about high-risk physicians, often to the point of protecting those physicians from public scrutiny. Another mark against the state system is that the regulatory apparatus can be manipulated by special interest groups to limit competition through scope-of-practice restrictions.”

Every Member of Congress, especially those on the deficit reduction “Supercommittee,” should be forced to read this study.

Why Doesnt the US Chamber Mind Its Own Business



What would you think if the owner of a grocery store chain took aim at the private financing of chicken farms, and demanded that the federal government ban partners from investing in the farms in exchange for a share of the gross revenues? Wouldn’t you think that critic shouldn’t butt his nose into someone else’s business arrangements, and that Uncle Sam should stay out of the business of chicken farming?

And let’s say that critic also charged that private farm financing encourages the farm operators to test questionable chicken-raising methods and produce substandard chickens. And that third-party financing raises a serious ethical question whether the farmer is more interested in the quality of his chickens or the outside financial backers. Wouldn’t you think that the critic is also illogical in his thinking about the farmer’s motivation and methods to produce good chickens? Isn’t it more logical to believe that a chicken farmer would protect his partners (and his own position) by trying to raise the best chickens, using the best methods?

Yet that is the unique logic behind what the President & CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in his annual “State of American Business” address. Thomas Donohue said the following:

We’re also aiming to stop the alarming rise of third-party litigation financing. That’s where outside investors fund lawsuits in exchange for a share of the award or settlement. This encourages the filing of frivolous claims. It invites testing questionable claims in court. It provides an incentive to prolong cases. And it raises serious ethical questions. Who does the lawyer really represent–his client or the outside financial backers? In our business, we hear dumb ideas every day of the week. But this one takes the cake!

Really? Let’s walk through that statement.

First, the financing arrangements of any legally operated private law firm and its lawsuits are nobody else’s business, and there’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution that makes it Uncle Sam’s or any state government’s business. I don’t care if you hate trial lawyers more than any profession in America, it’s their business and their client’s decision to file a particular lawsuit. And if the lawyers are running the firm and filing lawsuits legally, it’s nobody’s business how they get financed and paid (assuming, of course, they’re not publicly selling stock in their firm). No privately held member of the U.S. Chamber wants Uncle Sam overseeing its financing arrangements. Isn’t that why the Chamber fought the Dodd-Frank bill and actually sues to prevent excessive regulation of American business? What makes privately owned law firms so unique that the federal government should regulate their financial deals? And what would the Chamber say if Uncle Sam pried into its dues structure and contributors’ list? Law firms are already subject to the the same government oversight regulations and mechanisms as any other privately held business.

Second, how does using third-party financing in any business invite poor decision-making with substandard inputs and a deterioration in quality? Why would a lawyer want to look like an idiot to his investors by filing crummy lawsuits with no chance of victory? Where in American business, or in any business in the world for that matter, does that happen? What made Mr. Donohue ascribe that type of illogical behavior to trial lawyers? Does he believe that third-party financing of any service industry results in poorer quality?

And if third-party financing of lawsuits is such a “dumb idea,” as Mr. Donohue put it, why does it happen at all? Doesn’t he trust “destructive capitalism” to put an end to any business practice that doesn’t work?

Third, the statement is evidence of the Chamber’s distrustful attitude towards local juries. Don’t they think that a group of average Americans is smart enough to smell a truly frivolous claim from a mile away and deny the claim? The Founding Fathers trusted local juries and millions of Americans still do – apparently including the Chamber, whose member companies bring lawsuits to court all the time?

Nothing in that statement makes any sense to me, except that it’s another way for the Chamber to infringe on our 7th Amendment right to a civil jury trial, and to cap the revenues earned by trial lawyers in their business. The business community fights against federal laws which would cap compensation for Wall Street executives, oil company executives, and any other business owner in America, and I agree with that position. But when it comes to contingent fee trial lawyers, the business community does a 180 and hypocritically wants Uncle Sam to tell the lawyer how much he can make and NO MORE.

The “cake” in this discussion belong to the Chamber for proposing such a dumb, unconstitutional and un-American idea.

Theres Nothing Conservative About Federal Law Preempting State Laws 7th Amendment Rights



Today a conference committee of U.S. House and Senate members is meeting again to try to complete a single bill to markedly change regulation of financial institutions by the federal government in response to the Wall Street crash of 2008-9. This area of law has been only the latest in which those who disregard or minimize the 7th Amendment (and its “Constitutional cousin,” the 10th Amendment) seek to preempt state statutory and common law, in this case through federal preemption of state banking and consumer protection laws. State officials, especially Attorneys General, and members of Congress assert that federal preemption hobbles the states’ ability to protect consumers from the types of abusive lending practices which contributed to the financial meltdown. As one commentator noted, “In the run-up to the mortgage meltdown, federal bank regulators fought hard to pre-empt any state efforts to crack down on shady bank practices. A number of states, like North Carolina and New York, were trying to crack down on abusive mortgage practices by subprime lenders. But many of the lenders were subsidiaries of national banks, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency declared that states had no right to touch them whatsoever. The feds did absolutely nothing to stop the explosion of no-doc loans, option ARMs, deceptive teaser rates and hidden ‘yield-spread premiums.'”

Federal preemption abrogates 7th Amendment rights by immunizing the affected industry from civil suits, with no accountability for negligence; it leaves injured consumers with no means of seeking recovery for injuries caused by the product or service. Federal bureaucrats love expanding their power and ensuring their permanency by preempting state law, and in recent years they’ve certainly exercised that power. Bureaucrats in the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Department of Homeland Security, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Transportation Safety Administration and Federal Railroad Administration have all joined in writing federal preemption into regulations.

The courts have joined in too, with the Supreme Court deciding in Riegel v. Medtronic that FDA approval of certain medical devices automatically preempted state common law, resulting in the dismissal of hundreds of lawsuits. The February 2008 decision ignored Congressional intent and disregarded 30 years of experience under the 1976 Medical Device Amendments (MDA), during which FDA regulation and state tort law worked together to protect consumers from dangerous devices. The Riegel decision gives total immunity to device manufacturers who fail to adequately warn consumers about device risks. In Riegel, the device that failed was a Medtronic balloon catheter used in heart surgery. Riegel needed additional surgery but eventually died. Now, thanks to the decision, Riegel’s heirs are left holding the bag for the manufacturer’s negligence. The MDA authorized the FDA to preempt the numerous state requirements only in statutory law. But the court decision turned the simple preemption provisions of the MDA into a vehicle giving total immunity from any accountability, with no checks and balances.

There’s nothing “conservative” about giving a federal bureaucrat life-or-death power over the average American sitting hundreds or thousands of miles away. Federal preemption is a blank check for Washington bureaucrats to expand their sphere of influence and inject themselves into our lives. Real advocates for the 7th and 10th Amendments should recognize that trading they’re trading freedom for a phony concept of “efficiency,” something which the Founding Fathers rejected.

Tea Party Leader Challenges House GOPs Fidelity to 10th Amendment



Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips slams H.R. 5 in a post on the TPN website and a newsletter sent today to TPN members and newsletter subscribers. Says Phillips in his newsletter:

The 10th Amendment does not say that the powers granted to the states can be usurped simply because the right party is in power.

The most recent instance on selective 10th Amendment interpretation is occurring around the IPAB repeal bill. The IPAB is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or as it is also known, the death panel.

The IPAB repeal ought to be fairly simple. Even some Democrats are on board with it. The Republican leadership decided to play stupid political tricks and attach the Medical Malpractice bill to the IPAB repeal bill.

Whether you think tort reform is a good idea or not, it is an issue that belongs to the states, not to the federal government. Tort law has always been governed by the states.

The 10th Amendment means what it says. It is not a campaign slogan that we throw out when it is convenient and ignore the rest of the time. The 10th Amendment is one of the best defenses we have against tyranny.

We supported Republicans in 2010 because we believed them. We did not elect them because we thought they were hypocrites.

We in the Tea Party do not insist in ideological purity but we insist that the candidates we support, support the Constitution. That means all of it.

Not just the parts we find convenient.

Multiple House Republicans will co-sponsor an amendment to strip the tort reform language from the combined bill and leave the good IPAB repeal language. They need to know that real conservatives out there support them!

Quote of the Day Republican Rep Louie Gohmert Protects State Tort Law



“When it comes to the States’ tort system, the State court system, it’s none of our business unless there is an adequate Federal nexus. That’s guided a couple of votes that may have surprised people that I made, but I simply could not support Federal takeover of State tort law.”

That was Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, who not only talks the talk of limited government under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but walks the walk. When H.R. 5, the bill to mandate federal limits on awards from all medical malpractice and health care-related lawsuits, was under consideration, he spoke out against it and voted against it on the floor of the U.S. House. Last week, during debate on the defense authorization bill, Rep. Gohmert once again stood up for the rights of states to run their civil justice systems without federal interference from Congress. Here’s more from those floor remarks:

“Congress has this power to create the courts, Federal courts. States take care of their own State system. It’s one of the reasons, though, that I voted against a couple of bills recently, because medical malpractice reform was being dictated from here in Congress for every State in the country.

I love what Texas did with medical malpractice reform in its State court system, but it’s a State court system. I also know that if the Congress decides we need to start dictating to every State what their State court system can or can’t do, then when a far more liberal Congress comes in they will be able to say, Look, you so-called “conservative” Republicans dictated to the States what their State tort law should be, so now we’re going to dictate to the States what we think it should be, and it ends up being a Federal takeover of something that is entirely a State system.

THAT is a federalist! I hope I have the chance soon to discuss with Rep. Gohmert the latest research on the Texas state medmal law, showing that there was no “hemorrhage of doctors” prior to its imposition and no big increase afterwards. In the meantime, it’s great to see this authentic constitutional conservative standing up against the agenda of the medical groups demanding a Washington takeover of state law and a Beltway Cabal that would dictate health care policy from Washington.

Quote of the Day State Constitutions on Jury Trial for Civil Suits Part III



On July 16 and on June 29, I posted sections from selected state constitutions which specifically guarantee the right to a jury trial for civil suits. It’s time for Part III in the series, with more quotes:

“The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. Juries in criminal cases in which a sentence of death or imprisonment for thirty years or more is authorized by law shall consist of twelve persons. In all criminal cases the unanimous consent of the jurors shall be necessary to render a verdict. In all other cases, the number of jurors, not less than six, and the number required to render a verdict, shall be specified by law.” — Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 23. Additionally, Section 31 of Article 2 adds, “No law shall be enacted in this state limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person.”

“Trial by jury shall be as heretofore, and the right thereof remain inviolate. The General assembly may provide, however, by law, that a verdict may be rendered by not less than five-sixths of the jury in any civil case.” — Pennsylvania Constitution, Section 6.

“The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate; but the general assembly may authorize trial by a jury of a less number than twelve men in inferior courts; but no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” — Iowa Constitution, Section 9.

“(H)e or she shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself or herself, nor shall he or she be deprived of life, liberty or property, unless by the judgment of his or her peers or by the law of the land.” — Delaware Constitution, Section 7.

“The right of trial by Jury shall be secured to all and remain inviolate forever; but a Jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law; and in civil cases, if three fourths of the Jurors agree upon a verdict it shall stand and have the same force and effect as a verdict by the whole Jury, Provided, the Legislature by a law passed by a two thirds vote of all the members elected to each branch thereof may require a unanimous verdict notwithstanding this Provision.” — Nevada Constitution, Article I, Section 3.

“The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party.” — Georgia Constitution, Article I, Section I, Paragraph XI.

Many other state constitutions simply state that the right to a trial by jury “shall remain inviolate,” with no language to differentiate between civil and criminal cases. For instance, Section 13 of the Illinois Constitution states, “The right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate.” The official annotated version of the Illinois Constitution includes the following explanation: “The U.S. Constitution’s Seventh Amendment guarantee of a right to jury trial in civil cases does not apply to state courts. But this section and its predecessors in earlier Illinois Constitutions protect the right in both civil and criminal cases. The right of trial by jury ‘as heretofore enjoyed’ has been held to refer to the right both under English common law and as it existed at the time of adoption of each Illinois Constitution.”

Tea Partiers Conservatives Should Oppose Federal Law Limiting Medical Malpractice Lawsuits



Last night in his State of the Union speech, President Obama indicated his support for some type of federal law limiting lawsuits for medical malpractice. And this week, House Republicans introduced H.R. 5, officially titled the “Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011,” which is identical to a bill passed by the House GOP in 2005. The bill has three main features:

1) It contains a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages (more restrictive in its design than any cap enacted by any state) and stringent limits on attorney’s fees;
2) It applies not only to medical malpractice claims, but also to drug and device cases, nursing home cases, and claims against the insurance industry; and
3) The bill preempts state laws that provide additional protections to patients.

I’m disapppointed that the President and the sponsors of H.R. 5 have targeted this sector of the Constitutionally protected civil justice system for a federal takeover. When Pres. Obama raised it during the SOTU, conservative commentator Ramesh Ponnuru immediately called it “one of the Republicans’ crummiest ideas” and added, “There’s no need for a federal takeover of medical-malpractice rules.” EXACTLY. But apparently the President and senior members of the GOP (the party of “limited government”) now aim to limit your 7th Amendment right by using a government mandate, exactly what the GOP opposes in ObamaCare. Bizarre.

Unfortunately, the bill breaks the House Republicans’ promise to “stick with the Constitution”: it enhances the power of the federal judiciary and Executive Branch over the rights of average Americans; it won’t stop medical malpractice; and it attacks rising health care costs with the wrong solution. The bill provides a marker for the differences between the too-business-friendly Republican establishment (the “K Street Republicans” and “Blue Bloods”) who dominate Washington, and the Tea Party-oriented, limited-government Americans of all parties (the “Main Street Republicans” and “Blue Collars”) who swept the Republican Party into the House majority in the last election. Since last June, I have been posting here on the history and nature of our Constitutionally protected and unalienable right to file civil suits, and the dangers to our rights. More recently, I’ve written on the relationship between the 7th Amendment, its Constitutional “uncle,” the 10th Amendment, and two clauses in the Constitution which are abused simultaneously by President Obama and anti-Obama, anti-7th Amendment Republicans. This bill is the first real test of the fidelity of the Republican Party and Tea Party groups to the Constitution’s strict limits on federal power and to the promotion of individual and states’ rights in the Bill of Rights.

Here are a set of reasons why Tea Partiers, Constitutional conservatives, Main Street Republicans and Blue Collars should vigorously oppose H.R. 5 and any federal law limiting medical malpractice lawsuits:

1. The Constitutional basis for medical malpractice tort reform is also the basis for ObamaCare, and both violate the 10th Amendment’s protections of states’ rights. When he introduced H.R. 5, Rep. Phil Gingrey cited the language of the Commerce Clause: of the Constitution. I wrote about the abuse of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution in separate posts on December 6, on December 14, and on January 4. Simply put, the pro-medmal-reform and pro-ObamaCare forces depend on the theory that the Commerce Clause trumps the protection of individual and states’ rights in the Bill of Rights. That’s a formula for a slide into dictatorship. And as I wrote on December 6, Founding Father George Mason foresaw the holes in the Constitution and argued against ratification of the Constitution without a Bill of Rights.

2. A better name for any such bill is the “Abortion Butchers & Sexual Abusers Civil Immunity Act of 2011.” If enacted, doctors who kill babies and their mothers (see the Gosnell case) could leave jail after their sentence is up, then stop by the bank to pick up their blood money and start over. Why would a pro-lifer (like me) ever want to limit the amount of money an abortion victim could take from killers and butchers in a civil suit?! And it even protects doctors who commit intentional torts, such as sexual abuse! The broad scope of H.R. 5 also protects bad drug and device companies which have been criminally prosecuted.

3. The bill does nothing to stop medical malpractice, which kills up to 100,000 Americans annually and injures up to ten times that number. The bill doesn’t improve hospital hygiene, medical records technology, or any other medical practice. Medical malpractice lawsuits can’t exist if there’s little or no medical malpractice.

4. We have a medical malpractice crisis, but not a medical liability crisis. The number of medical malpractice claims has been headed down – yes, DOWN – for years, down 15 percent from 1999 to 2008. The insurance industry’s own data reveals that the amount they’ve paid out for malpractice claims dropped by over 40% between 2002 and 2008, when adjusted for inflation. H.R. 5 is like fixing a flat tire by emptying the radiator. It misses the point and attacks a non-problem.

5. This bill would increase government spending, because those unable to hold wrongdoers accountable will become dependent on Medicare and Medicaid for payment of their medical costs. The taxpayers will be forced to pay for incompetent doctors and for drugmakers’ and medical device manufacturers’ faulty products.

6. Why would the GOP immunize industry groups which endorsed ObamaCare and enabled its enactment? The AMA and Big Pharma gave us ObamaCare’s unconstitutional mandate, budget-busting spending hikes, and huge tax increases. THANKS FOR NOTHING.

7. Medical malpractice today, religious liberty and gun rights tomorrow? There is no differentiation regarding medical malpractice lawsuits under the Constitution. This would be the same as capping damages in suits against schools firing Christian professors or limiting the size of gun clips.

8. The Founding Fathers were never for tort reform. Back in September, I offered to buy the best dinner in Washington to anyone to shows me just ONE pro-tort reform quote by any Founding Father. I’ve had no takers and I’m not worried, because none of them proposed limiting our 7th Amendment rights.

To the contrary, the Founding Fathers endorsed and protected the “unalienable right” that a citizen could bring civil claims to a local court of law, before a jury of peers. That right had been expressly recognized in British law for centuries, back to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. The posts linked in the right sidebar on this site’s homepage provide ample proof that the Founding Fathers were for civil suits and for the lawyers who bring them, period.

Surprise Bipartisan US House Bill Supports Civil Suits Against Unfair Eminent Domain Actions



On Tuesday afternoon, the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution will hold a hearing on a bill introduced last week, H.R. 1433, titled The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2011. Co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of Representatives – yes, including many Republicans – the bill is aimed at stopping municipalities from condemning private property for private land development. Among the witnesses will be Ms. Lori Ann Vendetti, a homeowner in Long Beach, New Jersey, one of a group of homeowners who successfully fought the city’s efforts to take their homes and allow developers to make millions building upscale condos.

The hearing and bill should be of great interest to anybody who promotes and advocates Americans’ right to utilize the civil litigation process and the rights protected by the 7th Amendment to a jury trial for civil suits. Section 4 of the bill creates a private right of action to fight local eminent domain actions, as follows:

SEC. 4. Private right of action.

(a) Cause of Action.–Any (1) owner of private property whose property is subject to eminent domain who suffers injury as a result of a violation of any provision of this Act with respect to that property, or (2) any tenant of property that is subject to eminent domain who suffers injury as a result of a violation of any provision of this Act with respect to that property, may bring an action to enforce any provision of this Act in the appropriate Federal or State court. A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States from any such action in a Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction. In such action, the defendant has the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the taking is not for economic development. Any such property owner or tenant may also seek an appropriate relief through a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order.

(b) Limitation on Bringing Action.–An action brought by a property owner or tenant under this Act may be brought if the property is used for economic development following the conclusion of any condemnation proceedings condemning the property of such property owner or tenant, but shall not be brought later than seven years following the conclusion of any such proceedings.

© Attorneys’ Fee and Other Costs.–In any action or proceeding under this Act, the court shall allow a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorneys’ fee as part of the costs, and include expert fees as part of the attorneys’ fee.

This is precisely one of the scenarios that the Founders designed when drafting the Bill of Rights – the individual fighting in court to protect his property rights against the power of the sovereign. On these pages, I’ve been warning those conservative groups which back “tort reform” that civil suits and trial lawyers are the expression of our unalienable right to a civil jury trial, that the civil litigation process has its roots in centuries of American and British law back to the Magna Carta in 1215, and that there are numerous conservative causes for which trial lawyers file civil suits every day. Last September, I wrote Seven Reasons Why Protecting 7th Amendment Should Be Republican & Tea Party Priority, and Reason No. 3 was Civil Suits Protect Religious Liberty, Gun Rights, and Property Rights, and I specifically mentioned those lawsuits filed against unfair eminent domain actions. But I haven’t seen a lot of acceptance by many mainstream “conservative” groups of this piece of basic American philosophy and history. Instead, much of the energy this year in Congress is being directed at “tort reforming” our unalienable rights away when any health care-related lawsuits, through attempting to enact H.R. 5, which I’ve discussed often on this site.

It’s fascinating that many of the Republican co-sponsors of H.R. 1433 are also co-sponsors of H.R. 5. The two bills couldn’t be more contradictory in intent, spirit, and basis in American Constitutional law. It should make the hearing interesting to watch, which you can do from the committee’s website, linked above.

Religious Liberty Needs Open Courtrooms to Survive



This afternoon, the House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on ”The State of Religious Liberty in America.” Among the witnesses will be Colby May, Director and Senior Counsel of the Washington office of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), one of the premier pro-religious liberty groups in America. Colby May goes to court all the time to protect religious liberty, taking advantage of the 7th Amendment rights protected by the Founding Fathers to enable Americans to exercise our faith without infringement by the federal or state governments. His testimony recognizes that, ”The courts and the judges that preside over them will largely determine the strength of America’s religious liberties.” And he is testifying about the recent instances in which courts have failed to protect our rights against a college administrator, such as has happened at the University of California in the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez case.

I hope Members and witnesses remember that to survive, religious liberty needs open courtrooms. Any measure to restrict the ability of Americans to file a lawsuit in court compromises our ability to defend our religious liberty. So, for instance, the Judiciary Committee’s original bill to toughen sanctions against attorneys under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure could have resulted in a nonprofit’s or small-sized law firm’s refusal to take on a religious liberty lawsuit because of potential attorney sanctions. That’s why the committee added a rule of construction to exempt lawsuits over constitutional issues from application of the proposed sanctions. Similarly, the application of the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Iqbal and Twombly cases could result in the dismissal of a religious liberty case that would otherwise proceed to the discovery, if the attorney can’t provide the threshhold level of documentation needed to meet the stricter pleading standards enunciated by the Court in those cases. A plaintiff seeking to protect religious liberty rights against an overbearing college or business might find it difficult to meet the standards if witnesses to the behavior at issue are afraid to come forward without a subpoena.

The Founding Fathers didn’t differentiate between lawsuits to protect constitutional rights and lawsuits for negligence; they designed the civil justice system for all causes. The “tort rerform” movement could continue to spark conflict with social conservatives over the access to civil justice, unless Americans tell Congress and state legislatures to keep courtroom doors opened.

Republican Tort Reform That Could Hurt Social Conservatives



I met this week with two of the top litigators in America for social conservative cases in federal and state courts. Both are involved in civil suits filed to fight the Obamacare contraception mandate and to defend state traditional marriage amendments. I discussed two bills recently passed in the U.S. House, and supported by Congressional Republicans, with a “Loser Pays” provision that forces the losing party in litigation to pay legal fees, which is used in courts in Europe to discourage litigation. The social conservative litigators are completely opposed to Loser Pays, and I urged them to take their objections public and to inform Republicans in Congress. Indeed, they told me that many of the Obamacare contraception cases they’ve filed – Hobby Lobby et al – would never have been filed if we had a national Loser Pays rule in American courts.

So why are they opposed to Loser Pays?

Loser Pays rules ensure that only the wealthiest plaintiffs can afford to undertake a civil action and also punishes individuals with serious and meritorious claims for seeking access to justice. Loser Pays rules fail to recognize that a person or a business can have a legitimate claim regarding fact and law, and yet still ultimately lose the case, sometimes on procedural grounds. In reality, for most individuals and small businesses, the financial risk of having to pay the other side’s costs and legal fees is one too great to bear, no matter how meritorious the claim. Indeed, Loser Pays schemes create a chilling effect on plaintiffs with worthy, legitimate disputes, and hamper access to the courts.

Loser Pays rules overlook the fact that state and federal judges have full authority to issue sanctions, including awards of legal fees, if parties engage in wrongful conduct or waste judicial resources. Mandatory Loser Pays rules trample on this tradition of judicial discretion and would overturn states’ rights to define their own civil justice rules.

From a purely political standpoint, Loser Pays hurts plaintiffs within the Republican base. Loser Pays rules hurt social conservative litigators, such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, ACLJ and the Becket Fund, as well as entrepreneurs who sometimes depend on the civil justice system. The Chamber of Commerce, which proposes Loser Pays laws in states across the country, and the business community don’t represent those conservative groups and small businesses and won’t protect them.

Of course, Loser Pays also hurts liberal nonprofit litigation groups, but many of those groups are already fighting Loser Pays bills in Congress and statehouses across the country. They need conservative groups to start warning Republicans, before the trend goes too far.

A Special Welcome to Tea Partiers All Constitutional Conservatives



I’ve watched the development of the new wave of grassroots “Constitutional conservatism” and the Tea Party movement with great interest and hope, and it reminds me of the rise of the Reagan Revolution, in which I participated as a campaigner in 1980 at Notre Dame Law School (where I met him) and then as a political appointee during his Presidency. The national debate over the increasing size and scope of the federal government, especially during enactment of the health care and stimulus bills, has sparked an entire movement dedicated to the rediscovery of the principles of limited government and individual rights. I agree with every word of the “Mt. Vernon Statement” and applaud the conservative activists who signed it. I invite them and all like-minded Americans to honor the 7th Amendment as a bulwark against an encroaching federal government that takes a bite from our wallets and steps on our hopes and dreams. On this website, I’m going to discuss, in detail, the ways in which the 7th Amendment is being attacked almost daily, from legislative proposals for federal preemption of state law and artificial liability limits, to court decisions with judge-made limits on the filing of civil suits. Defending our Constitutional rights requires a vigilant, principled defense of each amendment in the Bill of Rights – remember, the man who drafted the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, James Madison, simultaneously drafted the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil suits and called it “one of the best securities to the rights of the people.”

I also invite Tea Partiers and Constitutional conservatives to submit their ideas, articles, and quotes in support of this website and will give you credit here. Stay in touch!

Pro-7th Amendment Broadcaster Now On Sirius Satellite Radio



I’ve written often about the interviews conducted by Terry Lowry on his radio show, the What’s Up show, broadcast on 12 radio stations from Houston to Chattanooga to Pittsburgh. I’m pleased to announce that this pro-7th Amendment broadcast, by a noted social conservative and Christian broadcaster, is now also heard on Sirius satellite radio on Channel 131, Family Talk Radio. Now the entire nation can hear periodic reports on civil justice issues and a defense of the Founding Fathers’ plan for open courtrooms for all types of cases, from medical malpractice and defective products to religious liberty, property rights and other personal rights. The interviews are also available for downloading from the What’s Up home page.

Terry interviewed me for today’s broadcast, and we discussed recent congressional action to assist property rights owners, victims of forced abortions, and American victims of Iranian terrorism by enabling their lawsuits. I noted the inconsistency between the protection by many Congressmen of those groups’ 7th Amendment rights and the attacks by some of the same Congressmen on medical malpractice lawsuits. As I noted, the Founders built a civil justice system to enable Americans to have their civil suits heard before juries in all types of cases. The Founders didn’t differentiate between lawsuits to protect property rights and medmal claims, and neither should Congress. See my post of January 25 on the reasons for Republicans and Tea Partiers to support open courtrooms for all.

You can download listen to the first interview segment here and to the second interview segment here.

House GOP Leaders Trash States Ignore Real Reform in Special Memo



In a special memorandum issued to House Republicans this week, the four senior House Republicans (Reps. Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy and Hensarling) laid out their plan for implementing a ten-year federal budget under Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan and that would avoid cuts in national security and certain domestic programs. In so doing, they thoroughly trashed the concept of state sovereignty over their own judicial systems, and ignored real budget reforms that save far, far more than would their beloved federal medmal limits bill, H.R. 5, the bizarrely named “HEALTH Act.” Anyone with a true allegiance to the Constitution and Bill of Rights should see this plan as a death knell of states’ rights, delivered by House Republican leadership as a diktat to the Congressmen.

The last section of the memo is titled, “Reforming the Medical Liability System,” and it begins by condemning state supreme courts: “Many state supreme courts have judicially nullified reasonable litigation management provisions enacted by state legislatures… ” So the leaders apparently don’t have much respect for the state judges selected or elected under the state constitutions. But state legislators don’t get any respect either, with the leaders stating later in that section, “Further, abusive state tort laws drive what is known as ‘defensive medicine,’…” Well, those state tort laws don’t just drop out of the sky; they’re enacted by the elected representatives of the people under state constitutions.

So, in a little more than a page, the House GOP leaders tell the 50 states and the people who elect the state legislators that they’re all idiots unworthy of governing themselves. It’s the arrogant, Washington-know-it-all attitude on open display, exactly what the House Republicans were elected to replace under the Capitol dome.

And in between those two quotes is another one, the Big Lie about H.R. 5: “The HEALTH Act also does not preempt any state law that otherwise caps damages.” EVERY constitutional scholar who has studied and written on the bill, from Randy Barnett and Rob Natelson and the Heritage Foundation to Ted Frank and Walter Olson, has concluded otherwise. In almost 8 hours of debate on the House floor, and several more this week in the House Judiciary Committee, proponents of H.R. 5 haven’t been able to point to ONE, just ONE current scholar who believes that H.R. 5 protects or respects state laws.

The leaders’ utter disregard for the Constitution, buttressed with their extraordinarily hypocritical stand against Obamacare on constitutional grounds, is the reason why a small but increasing number of House Republicans are vocally rebelling against the leaders’ insistence on H.R. 5. They know that federal tort reform is as violative of states’ and individual rights as Obamacare, as both are based on the overly broad, Wickard v. Filburn interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

These Members also realize that the pittance supposedly saved by H.R. 5, now estimated at $41 billion over ten years (under 1% of the total budget for that period), is dwarfed by Rep. Ryan’s own proposal to change Medicare and Medicaid, where the real health care dollars are spent. He estimates his plan would save hundreds of billions of dollars. Whether you agree with that proposal or not, it’s an option defended by the senior House Republican on the federal budget.

But House GOP leaders won’t propose or defend that plan. Instead, it’s full speed ahead on the road to federal control of state courtrooms.

Even Tort Reform Advocates Admit That HR 5 Is Impermissible



Impermissible.” That’s the word used last week by pro-tort-reformerTed Frank on the Point of Law legal blog to describe the Constitutional status of H.R. 5, the “HEALTH Act,” designed to pre-empt most health care-related lawsuits around the country. His post conceding that Congress should not “impermissibly federalize all medical malpractice litigation” capped a stunning week in which intellectual support for H.R. 5 evaporated.

As I wrote here earlier, on May 21, Prof. Randy Barnett, the GOP’s favorite Constitutional scholar, wrote a scathing op-ed in the Washington Examiner and a Volokh Conspiracy blog post, both of which condemn H.R. 5 as a breach of states’ rights (attached as Acrobat docs). He asked out loud if the House GOP are “fair-weather federalists.” His op-ed was an intellectual and political earthquake; it was very widely distributed and the subject of an article in ‘The Hill’ on May 23. And note that Barnett’s objections are NOT resolved by exempting state constitutions and courts from the reach of the bill, as Democrats tried to do during two committee markups.

On May 22, Prof. Ilya Somin of George Mason Law School, another Tea Party-side scholar, concurred with Prof. Barnett in a Volokh blog post, and he took his own shots at GOP supporters of H.R. 5. “Hopefully, at least some Republican conservatives will begin to see that you can’t advocate strict limits on federal power with one hand while trying to impose sweeping federal control over state tort law with the other.”

On May 23, Ted Frank wrote his concession. Quote: “It’s easy enough for Congress to condition portions of Medicare block grants on a state establishing reasonable medical-malpractice litigation guidelines, or for Congress to prohibit certain types of lawsuits over federally-funded medical care. It doesn’t need to impermissibly federalize all medical malpractice litigation to accomplish reform.” (Emphasis mine.)

That day, another noted legal expert on the pro-tort reform side, Walter Olson of the Cato Institute, also conceded that Barnett is right (attached in an Acrobat document). A short segment: “Thanks to star libertarian lawprof and Cato senior fellow Randy Barnett for pointing out something that has needed saying for a while: most proposals in the U.S. Congress to address medical malpractice law run into serious federalism problems. Most medical malpractice suits go forward in state courts under state law. If the U.S. Congress wishes to impose a nationwide rule on these suits, such as by limiting damages for pain and suffering, it first needs to answer the question: under which of the federal government’s constitutionally prescribed powers is it acting? Even if it can identify such authority, it should also ask: is it a wise idea–consistent with what one might call a prudential federalism–to gather yet more power in Washington at the expense of the states? Unfortunately, the backers of the current federal med-mal bill have chosen to rely on the Supreme Court’s very expansive “substantial effects” doctrine…” (Emphasis mine.)

On May 24, conservative legal expert Jonathan Adler added his opinion while commenting on Olson’s post: “Olson is anything but an opponent of tort reform generally. Indeed, he’s been one of the litigation explosion’s most prominent critics. But he recognizes that support of a particular policy goal does not require abandoning a principled commitment to the broader federalist scheme.” (Emphasis mine.)

On May 26, Prof. Randy Barnett was interviewed on the nationally syndicated ‘What’s Up’ radio program by host Terry Lowry about how H.R. 5 violates the limitations on the powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You can listen to the first segment of his interview here and listen to the second segment of the interview here (MP3 audio files). Starting at 2:32 of the second segment, he said, “Congress doesn’t really have the authority to do tort reform legislation because that has historically been within the province of the states…” He proceeded to reiterate the other points of his op-ed and that federal tort reform legislation is an abuse of the Commerce Clause, a point that Rep. Ted Poe made during consideration of H.R. 5 by the House Judiciary Committee.

Also recall that Constitutional conservative Rob Natelson of the Independence Institute in Colorado wrote a letter to the House Judiciary and Energy & Commerce Committees weeks ago to advise them that H.R. 5 is unconstitutional, with arguments very similar to those of Prof. Barnett. So that’s six Constitutional experts against H.R. 5, from Natelson to Adler.

There’s only one important question left for Republicans about H.R. 5, and it’s purely political: WHY would the House GOP run over the Constitution to reward those medical associations which were the co-conspirators in the enactment of ObamaCare, thus shoving the unconstitutional individual mandate down our throats?!

Iqbal-Twombly Pleading Standards Could Also Threaten Religious Liberty



On June 28, I posted about the change in federal pleading standards brought about by the Supreme Court in the Iqbal and Twombly decisions, and how those decisions infringe upon the rights of American terrorism victims to sue terrorist financiers in federal court. Those decisions could also threaten every American’s religious liberty through imposition of an uncertain “plausibility” standard, which invites “defensive lawyering” and subjective dismissals of complaints by individual judges. The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian-based nonprofit which litigates religious freedom cases nationwide, criticized the Iqbal-Twombly standards in a a January 26, 2010 letter to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here’s what ADF said about the decisions:

“Our concern with this is not that the Twombly rule makes our plaintiffs work more difficult, or our defense work easier. Rather, our concern is that vague, malleable rules are bad news when it comes to orderly, reasoned processes. Already, the Twombly standard has unnecessarily complicated the early stages of litigation by encouraging “defensive lawyering.” Plaintiffs’ lawyers are now motivated to increase the complexity, length, and detail of their complaints, anticipating that their case will be one that needs “amplification” to become “plausible.” In turn, defense lawyers now have to respond to these expansive “toss in the kitchen sink” pleadings, and are motivated to litigate motions to dismiss that they never would have invested in under the clear Conley standard. This is not speculation, but based on direct experience with Twombly in our cases. Worse, the virtually unbounded discretion built into the Twombly standard may encourage some overworked, harried judges to dismiss cases based upon their subjective notation of what is “plausible,” and leave it to the appellate courts to sort out. The result, again, is further strain on judicial resources, and litigating matters that would not have been at issue under Conley.”

The letter cited three cases in which ADF has already faced the impact of the Iqbal-Twombly decisions: Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Obama, 617 F. Supp. 2d 808; Boardley v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 605 F. Supp. 2d 8; and Creed v. Family Express Corp., 101 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 609. And ADF concluded that it would be “prudent” for either the courts or the Congress to resolve the mess created by the new standards by returning to the practical, fair pleading standard employed for decades under the Conley case, also discussed in my June 28 post.

Families of Servicemen Killed by Iranian Terrorism Need Our Calls to Congress



Lynn Derbyshire, national spokesperson for the hundreds of family members of our servicemen killed in the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, was interviewed yesterday by Terry Lowry, host of the “What’s Up” radio program. That program is heard daily on twelve radio stations and on Sirius Family Talk Radio, Channel 131. Ms. Derbyshire’s brother, Vincent Smith, was among the 241 servicement killed in the bombing in October 1983. She discussed the bombing of the barracks by Iranian-sponsored terrorists, the court judgment for $2.6 billion obtained against Iran by the families and the attachment of an Iranian account with $1.8 billion in funds, and the efforts to enact a bill in Congress (H.R. 4070 in the House and S. 2101 in the Senate) to punish Iran for its terrorism and assist the families. Ms. Derbyshire discussed the opposition to the bills by a Wall Street institution, DTCC, which in effect is siding with Iran. The Shariah Finance Watch blog has opined that DTCC’s opposition “should amount to treason.”

Ms. Derbyshire and the families urge all Americans to contact their Congressmen and Senators to ignore DTCC’s opposition and support the bills.

You can listen to the interview in four segments, linked below:

Segment One: The bombing and impact on families

Segment Two: The court judgment against Iran

Segment Three: The frozen Iranian funds & DTCC’s opposition

Segment Four: The legislation and calls to Congress

Debt Reduction Supercommittee Should Ignore CBOs Guesswork on Tort Reform



The AMA and other medical groups have advised the Joint Congressional Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “supercommittee”) that federally imposed limits on lawsuits over medical malpractice could save as much as $62 billion over ten years, citing the estimate provided last year by the Congressional Budget Office. Besides the fact that such limits are unconstitutional, but there are multiple deficiencies in the CBO estimate and reasons for the supercommittee to ignore that estimate.

First, as I wrote here on January 6, “The Congressional Budget Office has a long, inglorious history of large-scale, massive errors in its scoring of budget proposals.” As economist Alan Reynolds warned years ago, the CBO not only has a lousy record of estimating ten-year budget deficits and projections of policy impacts, but it’s missed often on just year-to-year projections. It’s no wonder that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor accused the CBO of outright “budget gimmickry” in its calculations last year on the supposed “savings” that would result from ObamaCare, or that Cantor and House Speaker John Boehner criticized CBO for predicting that repealing ObamaCare would cost $145 billion.

Second, as attorney Brett Emison points out, CBO admitted last year that it did not “consider the effect of tort reform on patient health and medical outcomes. Remarkably, the CBO determined that ‘many studies of malpractice costs do not examine health outcomes.'” As I wrote on January 14, implementing CBO’s projection of “savings” of $54 billion could actually result in more deaths and injuries. CBO admitted in its estimate that limits on medmal lawsuits could “an additional 4,853 Americans killed every year by medical malpractice, or 48,250 Americans over the ten-year period CBO examines.” And another 400,000 or more patients could be injured during the same 10 years.

Third, the CBO can’t estimate the impact that sweeping limits on medmal lawsuits would have on federal health care costs paid for by Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration. If someone is brain-damaged, mutilated or rendered paraplegic as a result of medical negligence, but cannot obtain compensation from the culpable party through the tort system, he or she may be forced to turn to those programs for compensation. None of these increased Medicaid or VA hospital costs are considered in the CBO estimate. Whenever there is a successful medical malpractice lawsuit involving an elderly or poor person, Medicare and Medicaid can claim either an interest in whatever the patient recovers, so the victim reimburses the government for some of the health care expenditures. Without the lawsuit, Medicare and Medicaid will lose funds that the government would otherwise be able to recoup. And none of these lost funds are considered by the CBO.

Fourth, CBO guesstimated that imposing federal lawsuit limits would result in a reduction in a drop in liability insurance premiums, but provided no raw data, explanations, or sources to back up its estimate. Numerous states have already imposed caps on medmal lawsuit damages, with no impact on personal health insurance premiums. CBO makes the same assumption that ObamaCare proponents made, that Uncle Sam can wave a wand and magically force health insurance premiums to drop. How’s that one working out for us?

Anyone betting on federal lawsuit limits to balance the budget is wasting their time. Not only is it unconstitutional, but it won’t raise real money and solve our budget problems.

Beltway Legal Elitists Support Supremacy of Federal Law Over 7th 10th Amendments



I previously wrote about a panel at the National Convention of the Federalist Society on November 20 about the potential for reviving the right to a jury trial for civil suits as enumerated in the 7th Amendment. One of the panelists, attorney Michael Carvin of Jones Day, and an audience participant, Roger Pilon, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Cato Institute, had disturbing reactions to the pro-7th Amendment remarks of Gibson Vance, President of the American Association for Justice. Mr. Vance discussed the anti-7th Amendment nature of the Supreme Court’s affirmation of federal pre-emption (the federal overruling of state statutory and common law, including jury decisions) in Riegel vs. Medtronic; and the use of forced arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, citing his family’s experience with nursing homes. You can see his remarks starting at the 44-minute mark of the video.

Let’s start with some of Mr. Carvin’s remarks, which begin just after the 58-minute mark of the video.

Carvin first pledged allegience to the 7th Amendment, then denied that policies such as pre-emption and the use of forced arbitration clauses in consumer contracts have anything to do with the right to a jury trial for civil suits. “Circumstances have changed… this is really a policy debate and things have dramatically changed.” So that was his bridge comment from a short affirmation of the basic right to his “explanation” of what he called “entirely separate questions” which have “nothing to do with the right to have a jury.” That sounds a lot like the excuses used for decades by the Beltway gun control elitists to justify infringement on our rights enumerated in the 2d Amendment – “Well, we support the 2d Amendment but things have changed since the Revolution, and we can’t have unlimited rights to carry guns all over the place!” The people of the United States didn’t agree with Beltway legal elitists then, and ultimately neither the Supreme Court.

Carvin then termed the medical device pre-emption exemplified in Riegel as “entirely a debate about the Supremacy Clause, when and under what circumstances federal law trumps state law – state administrative agencies, state others, state decision-making, including juries – it has nothing to do with, whether or not, for the sphere of law left to the states, whether or not those will be adjudicated by juries or by courts… it really has nothing to do with it…” (referring to the 7th Amendment).

For those readers not expert in Constitutional law, the “Supremacy Clause” is in Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, and begins with, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…” (Emphasis mine.) It basically stands for the proposition that federal law trumps state law on the same subject.

Roger Pilon then joined the discussion on preemption, supported the Commerce Clause over the 7th and 10th Amendments, and added a red hearing about federal vs state regulation of drugs (starting at about the 1:29:50 mark on the tape). “For Mike Carvin, I think you’re absolutely right on your points about pre-emption, this is not a 7th Amendment issue… if the Commerce Clause was meant for anything, it was meant to ensure the free flow of goods and services among the states, and jury trials can really make a mess of that if pharmaceutical companies, for example, have to have 50 different labels for warnings on their medications.”

But there is no doubt that the Riegel decision resulted in the summary dismissal of lawsuits filed by hundreds of victims of defective medical devices. The companies cited the Riegel decision in their Motions to Dismiss and judges agreed with them. The “supremacy” of federal law trumped the right to a civil jury trial for the victims.

Think about the sweeping nature of the Constitutional principles enunciated by Michael Carvin and Roger Pilon: The Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause trump the 7th and 10th Amendments, two key components of the Bill of Rights. I can think of no better definition of “dictatorship” in Constitutional law than, “The Supremacy Clause trumps the Bill of Rights.” The Bill of Rights was drafted precisely as a check on the federal government’s powers. The Bill of Rights should limit ALL clauses of the Constitution which grant power to the federal government, or it limits none of those clauses.

The Founders realized soon after the ratification of the Constitution that the the powers granted to the federal government had to be bound and limited by an express Bill of Rights, especially with an amendment that protected states’ rights. I commend to readers the Tenth Amendment Center’s excellent summary of the debate over the Supremacy Clause. One of the two men who are considered the “Fathers of the Bill of Rights,” George Mason, refused to sign the Constitution precisely because the powers enumerated to the federal government were not limited by an express statement prtecting of individual and states’ rights. In his Objections to the Proposed Federal Constitution, published in June, 1788, Mason wrote in his first sentence, “There is no Declaration of Rights, and the Laws of the general Government being paramount to the Laws & Constitutions of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no Security. Nor are the People secured even in the Enjoyment of the Benefits of the common Law.” He then added more details of his objections to the Constitution.

And near the end of his Objections, George Mason pinpointed the limitation that the country needed to impose on the Supremacy Clause: “Under their own Construction of the general Clause, at the End of the enumerated Powers, the Congress may grant Monopolies in Trade & Commerce, constitute new Crimes, inflict unusual and severe Punishments, & extend their Powers as far as they shall think proper; so that the state Legislatures have no Security for their Powers now presumed to remain to them, or the People for their Rights.” Mason predicted, 222 years ago, that Washington legal elitists would grant supremacy in federal law over states’ rights and individual rights, unless those unalienable rights were guaranteed in writing and in law.

The Carvin-Pilon points echo the prevailing wisdom among proponents of federal preemption and among a majority of the current Supreme Court. In reading commentaries on the pre-emption issue written in recent years by Roger Pilon, a leading corporate defense attorney, and two attorneys who have argued for pre-emption several times before the Supreme Court, you read the same points: Pre-emption is all about the primacy in Constitutional law of the Supremacy Clause over states’ rights enumerated in the 10th Amendment, and the right to a jury trial enumerated in the 7th Amendment is ignored. The two attorneys, as follows, noted their satisfaction at the lack of attention to the Constitutional issues in recent Supreme Court pro-pre-emption decisions:

A significant feature of this term’s preemption cases is that rather than explicitly turning on sweeping philosophical debates about the merits of federal power versus federalism (sometimes embodied in presumptions about preemption or wading into administrative law battles about the degree of deference due federal agencies, many opinions hewed closely to the text of the federal statute, with a practical nod to the federal interests at stake in the overall federal scheme relating to that subject matter. Critics of judicial overreaching can take some comfort in this approach for interpretations that more closely follow the statutory text tend to give the political branches greater control.

Re-read that last sentence again slowly and note the authors’ “comfort” over the “greater control” granted to “political branches” over our lives. Beltway legal elitists prefer that federal bureaucrats make the final decision over the safety of implanted medical devices or financial services, with no recourse to a local jury for a defective product or fraudulent action by a financial institution. They can then influence the federal regulator one way or another without fear that the people of this country will hold anyone accountable.

Not once, in any commentary I’ve mentioned in this post, does any of these Washington-based legal experts and attorneys consider that the pre-emption of state statutory law by federal statutory law also infringes on an unalienable right protected in American constitutional and British common law for almost 800 years, the right to a civil jury trial. It is established law, accepted like any ordinary statement of fact, that the Supremacy Clause, and probably the Commerce Clause also, trump the 7th and 10th Amendments. The 7th Amendment is never even mentioned in any of the linked documents – it is thrown into the ashheap of history. After so many years of political war against the 7th Amendment, we see Beltway elitists cavalierly waving away our Constitutional history and our God-given rights in the name of federal supremacy and commerce. I’m astonished that the Cato Institute, which splashes its love of “Individual Liberty” over its homepage, so readily dismisses the right that James Madison called “as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.” It’s as if George Mason never wrote his warning about the dangers of the Supremacy Clause.

Tea Party activists, Constitutional conservatives, and 7th and 10th Amendment champions will face enormous difficulties in overturning years of established legal precedent to ensure the primacy of the 7th and 10th Amendments. NONE of the iconic conservative Justices of the Supreme Court is on record supporting states’ rights over the power already granted to federal bureaucracies by the business community and most of the “conservative” legal elite in Washington. The forces fighting for more Washington control over our lives while hiding behind the “conservative” label are rich, powerful, ensconced in high positions, and will not surrender without the people of this country demanding our unalienable rights.

Obamas First Budget Director Wants To Play Dictator



Peter Orszag, President Obama’s first director of the Office of Management and Budget, was one of the key figures in the enactment of ObamaCare, with its unconstitutional individual mandate and new government bureaucracy designed to order doctors to not cure us as they see fit. He must love the idea of sitting behind the Big Desk himself, signing off sweeping Executive Orders at a rapid-fire place, ordering Americans to do this and not do that. How else do you explain his bizarre penchant for writing that the panacea for the messiness of democracy is… less democracy? He wrote exactly this in an article titled, Too Much of a Good Thing for The New Republic:

To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic… But we need to confront the fact that a polarized, gridlocked government is doing real harm to our country. And we have to find some way around it.

Orszag attributes this polarization to the common, average American who has decided to not trust the mainstream media, and becomes “more radical” when meeting people “with similar opinions.” And it’s not the fault of “the elites,” because according to some of his favorite political scientists, “polarization is not primarily an elite-driven phenomenon… Polarized politics are partly here, so to speak, by popular demand.” No, the hatred for ObamaCare out there in fly-over land isn’t Orszag’s fault, it’s just us “little people” who don’t grasp the genius of all this “managed” health care.

Orszag is yet another ELITIST who blames AMERICANS for our political disagreements. He hides his hatred for Tea Partiers who revolt with his arrogant disdain for constitutional democracy behind the utterances of some equally arrogant, poli-sci psycho-babblers. During the Reagan years, we called people like this “Blame America Firsters.”

And Orszag’s prescription for ripping up our God-given rights and the Founding Fathers’ vision of limited government? Hold on to your seat:

To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions… we need to jettison the Civics 101 fairy tale about pure representative democracy and instead begin to build a new set of rules and institutions that would make legislative inertia less detrimental to our nation’s long-term health

Yeah, take it out of our hands, and build some bureaucratic dictatorial mechanisms. He wants “automatic stabilizers,” like a progressive tax system and more unemployment insurance; and “more backup rules,” like automatic spending triggers” when Congress doesn’t do its job and pass appropriations bills on time (and note that the GOP House has been doing its job this year). Classic high-taxing big government by fiat.

And we need more “independent institutions” – you know, independent of the PEOPLE who would be ordered to do something – like that ObamaCare bureaucracy he created to dictate our health care decisions. And what about accountability to us? He sweeps that away by quoting another poli-sci “expert” who analogizes the New Bureaucratic Order to the unaccountability of Supreme Court Justices who decided on their own to legalize abortion. And we’re supposed to accept MORE of that?!

Trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a regular practice for Peter Orszag. Not only does he want Uncle Sammy to decide which health care we can receive and pay form and which we cannot, he wants to dictate which medical malpractice lawsuits we can file, and thus take over entire state court systems. He wrote an op-ed last year in the New York Times in which he wrote, “Lawmakers missed an important opportunity to shield from malpractice liability any doctors who followed evidence-based guidelines in treating their patients.” Tort reform proponents slobbered all over it, trumpeting the Obama Administration’s “conversion” to their hope for new federal powers over local juries, local judges, and local health care decisions.

Those fans of Orszag’s tort reform proposal forgot, or purposefully ignored, the common thread between his ObamaCare and his medmal lawsuit limits: It would be the ORSZAGS of America who would make all the key decisions in both cases! The Orszag Elitists sitting in Washington will decide who gets the health care through ObamaCare, and the Orszag Elitists would also decide which “evidence-based guidelines” would be imposed to immunize doctors from their deadly negligence. Both are defended in lofty legalese under the Commerce Clause of the Article I of the Constitution, but patriots should know better.

Both ObamaCare and federal medical malpractice bills are based on the lust for federal power to override our decisions, made in the course of everyday life, including the judgment of twelve common, average Americans sitting in a jury box. When those decisions are made in the marbled halls of Washington, the lobbyists for the most powerful can sway a Congress, an Executive Branch, and a bureaucracy, and the people be damned.

Our Founding Fathers knew this and designed a federal government with limited enumerated powers precisely to avoid the Orszag Elitists from running our lives through ObamaCare or federal tort reform. This year, five conservative, anti-ObamaCare legal experts and two other experts who make a living criticizing trial lawyers agree that a federal medical malpractice law lies outside constitutional boundaries and is an unconstitutional violation of states’ and individual rights.

Peter Orszag hasn’t considered any of that and couldn’t care less. He loves to play The Man Behind the Curtain, spinning the dials and twisting the institutions of American life. Our basic rights and our authority to run our own government are “harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing” and should be plowed under.

Remember the common danger between Orszag’s ObamaCare and Orszag’s tort reform: that lust for federal power.

More From Rob Natelson on Limits to Federal Power Over State Law



Over the course of the year, I’ve quoted constitutional scholar Rob Natelson of the Tea Party-side Independence Institute numerous times, for his clear writings condemning a federal bill to limit damages awarded in medical malpractice and other health care-related lawsuits. He continues to analyze the original writings of the Founding Fathers to determine their intentions for the scope and shape of the powers enumerated to the federal government in the Constitution.

Writing recently on the pages of the Tenth Amendment Center, Natelson wrote an article titled, “The Greatly Misunderstood Chief Justice John Marshall.” In it he discussed the twisting of Marshall’s legacy by historians to justify judicial activism. Included in the discussion is an analysis of Marshall’s rulings in key cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the case often cited for an expansive view of the Commerce Clause by proponents of both ObamaCare and a federal tort reform bill to override state court systems. Natelson describes the actual intention of Marshall’s rulings in those two cases:

Marshall’s treatment of the Necessary and Proper Clause in McCulloch v. Maryland is widely misunderstood by people who (A) don’t know the law of the time, (B) haven’t read the entire opinion, and/or © don’t know that two of the words Marshall used–“convenient” and “appropriate”– had narrower meanings in his time than they have today. Marshall himself explained the decision in a subsequent series of op-eds, where he acknowledged that the Necessary and Proper Clause is not a grant of power at all, but an interpretive guide.

Gibbons v. Odgen is often appealed to, as Justice Jackson did, for a very broad reading of the “commerce” component of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under this reading, the Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to regulate any economic activity “substantially affecting” interstate commerce: agriculture, mining, manufacturing, heath care, insurance, medical marijuana–in fact, the entire economy.

However, Gibbons did not even mention the Necessary and Proper Clause. The primary holding of Gibbons was that navigation was within the prevailing legal definition of “commerce” for constitutional purposes–a decision that, under the original understanding of the Constitution, was clearly correct. Some of the Court’s dicta (extraneous language) added that in some circumstances commerce (including navigation) within state boundaries might be so tied up with interstate commerce that Congress could regulate it as well. But when Marshall addressed other aspects of the economy, it was to say that they were outside of Congress’s power. He specifically mentioned “health laws of every description” as being reserved exclusively to the states.

So those who use Gibbons to argue for the constitutionality of federal control of manufacturing, agriculture, land use, or health care are twisting some of Marshall’s words and omitting others.

In other words, the pro-ObamaCare forces and the pro-tort reform causes make the same error for the same reasons. In both cases, the result of victory in each case would be the exercise of excessive federal power, to the detriment of individual rights and the rights of individual states to regulate and manage the daily activities of the citizenry.

Americans are fortunate to have someone like Rob Natelson who has the ability and time to dig into the details of the foundational documents of our nation and educate us on the limits on federal power as intended by the Founders.

More FACTS About Texas Law Limiting Medical Malpractice Lawsuits



On July 27, I wrote for the third time about the real facts on the severe limits imposed in Texas on medical malpractice lawsuits. This week, Terry Lowry, host of the nationally syndicated What’s Up radio program, interviewed Alex Winslow, Executive Director of Texas Watch, about the results of the virtual elimination of those lawsuits through a constitutional amendment.

Mr. Winslow discussed the promise made to voters in Texas in 2003 that individual and overall health care costs would be reduced as a result of the limits in medmal lawsuits. But state and family costs (premiums and out-of-pocket costs) have risen and the state’s cost of health care is rising faster than national average, the exact opposite of what was promised. Texans were promised that giving away their right to hold wrongdoers responsible in a civil jury trial would result in lower costs.

Texans were also promised that that the quality and access to care would improve, and by every measure those promises have also been broken. The access to health care – the number of doctors – has not increased at all in rural and poor areas, such as in the Rio Grande Valley. The AMA still ranks Texas in the mid-40s in the number of physicians per capita, so the influx of doctors in Texas hasn’t kept up with the increase in state population. Meanwhile, according to Mr. Winslow, the Texas Medical Board, which is supposed to sanction bad doctors, is neither acting more quickly nor sufficiently sanctioning the small percentage of dangerous doctors in Texas. For instance, the TMA doesn’t run background checks on doctors moving from another state; a doctor practicing in Corpus Christi apparently left Minnesota in a hurry after leaving a trail of medmal claims.

You can listen to the first segment of the interview here, the second segment here, and the third segment here.