September 2011 Archives

I constantly remind Republicans and Tea Partiers that the same civil justice system used by trial lawyers to file medical malpractice and product liability cases is also utilized by conservative trial lawyers to file civil suits to protect property rights, religious liberty, gun owners' rights, and parental rights from government at all levels. Here are two more cases that illustrate the need to protect our constitutional rights.

1. Who would have believed that a simple home construction project could turn into a Supreme Court case? In 2005, Mike and Chantell Sackett bought a small piece of land in a residential subdivision in Idaho, so they could build their own house, and they obtained all the permits required under the law. But as they began building the house, the EPA suddenly informed them, without prior warning, that their land is "wetlands" under federal law, and ordered the Sacketts to return the state of the property to EPA's liking or suffer $37,500 per day in fines. The Sacketts hired experts on their own dime who certified that their parcel is not wetland, but the EPA didn't care. When the Sacketts filed suit in federal court against EPA, the EPA challenged their constitutional right to bring such a suit, alleging they would first have to restore their property, seek a "permit" (which costs twelve times the purchase price of the land), and then file a lawsuit when the permit was denied.

The federal district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with EPA, but the Supreme Court has granted the cert petition filed by the Sacketts' attorneys at the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation. The issues are whether landowners can sue EPA in court immediately after receiving an EPA compliance order issued under the Clean Water Act; and if not, whether that preclusion violates the Due Process Clause of the Constitution? In the brief filed this month with the Court, PLJ framed the situations as follows:

The Sacketts have never been offered any opportunity for meaningful review of the compliance order. EPA has no administrative process the exhaustion of which will produce an action reviewable in court. The Clean Water Act's compliance order enforcement provisions do not provide meaningful review, either. The Sacketts cannot initiate such review, but instead are left to the mercy and whim of EPA, never certain whether or when the agency will bring an enforcement action. Such review is available, if at all, only by ignoring or violating the compliance order and thereby incurring the potential for sanctions of up to $37,500 per day. Even if the Sacketts comply with the order, they still cannot seek judicial review.

The Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their grave. This is bureaucratic dictatorship of the type that Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and other patriots fought with their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor."

2. Imagine that you are hosting some friends once a week at your house to discuss passages from the Old or New Testament or the Koran, when the city government accuses you of improperly running a church, fining you $300 and demanding that you get a city permit before inviting your friends back. Think you would sue the city? That's what happened to Chuck and Stephanie Fromm in the City of San Juan Capistrano, California. A city official told Mr. Fromm that he needed a permit to hold regular gatherings of more than three people, and the Fromms would be fined $500 per meeting if they didn't get one! The Fromms are appealing the city's decision to the California Superior Court in Orange County, with the help of the Pacific Justice Institute (no relation to the Pacific Legal Foundation cited above).

Only in a PC-crazy environment could a group of four people be labeled a "church," just because they're studying their scripture. And it's especially ironic that this case occurred in a city founded as a religious mission!

Civil suits and trial lawyers are just as critical to protect social conservative causes as they are claims based in economics. Any effort to limit access to the civil justice system compromises everyone's right to seek justice and prevent governmental bodies from imposing their will over our lives.

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.

Republicans running for Congress next year, whether incumbents or first-timers, will face a barrage of ads charging that they'll cut or even kill Medicare. We've seen that in the two most recent special Congressional elections in NY and Nevada, and it didn't work, but in part because the Democratic candidate in each district was a very weak candidate with little to offer voters. Republicans will need every idea possible to avoid being tarred. One idea that I hope Republicans will support is included in a bill introduced into Congress this year, numbered H.R. 1063, and titled, the Strengthening Medicare And Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2011, or "SMART Act." This bill helps to replenish the Medicare Trust Fund, make Medicare work for seniors instead of the other way around, and reduces paperwork burdens for businesses. And believe it or not, it's a bipartisan Medicare bill, with the broadest swath of Congressman supporting it you'll ever see. More on that later.

Here's why we need to enact the SMART Act: When seniors on Medicare are hurt in an accident and sue the other party, they often file conditional Medicare claims to pay for treatment. Federal law requires the injured person's attorney to repay Medicare upon a judgment or settlement, before any funds are given to the injured senior. CMS, the federal agency that runs Medicare, is supposed to give the attorney a final figure for the total amount to repay, but CMS is slow and inaccurate. The attorney is barred by federal law from transferring the settlement to the senior, even if CMS takes forever to provide a final amount for repayment. As a result, it can take years to finally pay off even the smallest claim, and the senior doesn't see a dime of the settlement. At a Congressional hearing this summer, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), discussed the problems at CMS: "Businesses and injured individuals routinely negotiate a settlement, but cannot close on the settlement until CMS provides a complete list of all medical costs incurred. We have heard complaints from a variety of interested parties that CMS is not providing this information in a consistent or timely manner. CMS's delays cause lawsuits to drag on, hinders timely payments to injured individuals, and causes uncertainty and increased costs for both large and small businesses."

Here are a couple of anecdotes provided at the hearing about the problem: 1. A woman who was in a car accident suffered chest wall contusions and reported the settlement to Medicare. Years later, that woman is diagnosed with breast cancer. CMS denied her claim for treatment on the grounds that her breast cancer is related to her prior car accident, leaving the insurance company liable for the claims. 2. CMS actually sends dunning letters to seniors years after the accident that gave rise to the initial claim, for amounts as little as $1.59, $2.00, and $4.00, and regularly fails to respond in a timely fashion to phone calls and letters requesting information and assistance from either businesses or seniors. 3. CMS imposes a mandatory $1,000 per day per claim penalty on businesses for failure to properly report a MSP claim, even for small errors or technical problems that occur through no fault of the business.

The SMART Act takes care of all that. It streamlines the process, establishes real deadlines for CMS for claims processing, and enables businesses to meet CMS reporting requirements while maintaining data security. And it's cost-neutral, according to two economists' studies.

That's why the co-sponsors of the SMART Act in the House include the full spectrum of views represented in the House, such as Reps. Ron Paul and Diana DeGette; Allen West and Linda Sanchez; Peter Roskam and Tammy Baldwin. On what other bill would you find such an amazingly wide group of Congressional supporters? Rep. Roskam, one of the top House Republicans, called the bill "the only bipartisan Medicare bill in the whole world" at a dinner a couple of weeks ago. And the bill is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and scores of companies, including Safeway, Lowes, Best Buy, Marriott International and WalMart. The SMART Act is THE Medicare bill that Republicans can discuss with seniors back home without fear of blowback by Democrats. A bipartisan Senate bill is supposed to be introduced soon. I hope all Republicans hop on board and support the SMART Act, H.R. 1063.

On September 12, Texas Governor Rick Perry called for federal tort reform during the GOP Presidential debate. "You want to talk about some powerful job creation, tell the trial lawyers to get out of your state and to quit costing businessmen and women. That's what needs to happen in the states. and it's also what needs to happen at the federal level, passing federal tort reform at those federal levels." As I wrote on September 16, Gov. Perry now stands against some of the most respected Tea Party-side and conservative legal experts in America, who have written that a federal tort reform law is as unconstitutional as ObamaCare, and for the same reasons. But Gov. Perry also ignored two of the leading proponents of tort reform, who conceded months ago that a Texas-style national limit on medical malpractice lawsuits is clearly unconstitutional.

Walter Olson of the Cato Institute has been dubbed the "intellectual guru of tort reform." He was previously a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and his writing appears regularly in all of the major newspapers and networks. But on May 24, Mr. Olson wrote that conservative and anti-ObamaCare Professor Randy Barnett of the Georgetown University law Center was right in stating that tort law is strictly a state power and not subject to federal oversight. A short segment of his concession post: "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..."

Ted Frank, Adjunct Fellow with the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute, is described by the Wall Street Journal as a "leading tort-reform advocate." He's also the Editor of the pro-tort reform Point of Law blog; president of the Center for Class Action Fairness; has written for law reviews and numerous media outlets; and has testified before Congress multiple times. Mr. Frank is one of the chief theorists and spokepersons for the pro-tort reform movement. But also on May 24, Ted Frank conceded that Prof. Barnett and another conservative and anti-ObamaCare Professor, Ilya Somin of the George Mason University School of Law, were correct in their criticism of a federal tort reform law. Mr. Frank's 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."

So the "intellectual guru of tort reform" says that a national, one-size-fits-all law killing medmal lawsuits would have "serious federalism problems," while "a leading tort-reform advocate" says a Texas-style federal medmal law is "impermissible." Between them and the five conservative legal experts, such as Randy Barnett, it looks like the case is closed.

Is Rick Perry listening? Maybe we'll find out during the next GOP Presidential debate on Thursday. Personally, I'm not optimistic, since he ignored the writings of the five conservative legal experts and two pro-tort reform experts on the Internet months before he went nuclear on the subject.

It's remarkable that Texas Governor Rick Perry would call for federal tort reform and ignore the writings of so many highly respected conservative and Tea Party-side constitutional experts. Instead, he's sided with the pro-tort reform community in its reliance on constitutional theory that enables the federal government to trample on individual and states' rights in health care and tort law, issues which the Founding Fathers clearly reserved for the states alone. Ironically, his "federal tort reform" would reward members of health care associations, such as the AMA, AHIP, and the health insurance industry, which were the co-conspirators in the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare, which he promises to repeal. Let's review the legal theories in controversy here and how conservative legal experts have condemned federal tort reform this year.

At the start of the new Congress, pro-tort reform Republicans, led by a "Doctors Caucus" seeking special protection for their industry, introduced a bill, H.R. 5, a bill to impose stringent limits on the damages that victims of medical malpractice and other health care negligence can seek. The limits would apply to all lawsuits in the U.S. against doctors, hospitals, drug and device companies, nursing homes, and the insurance industry. The bill preempts all state laws that provide additional protections to patients.

Rob Natelson, formerly of the University of Montana Law School, is now Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute, a Tea Party-side legal expert and a former Republican candidate in Montana. He was the first expert from "the right side" to criticize H.R. 5, in a letter to Congress in April, and then again in an op-ed piece on May 9. Here are some excerpts from each:

H.R. 5 flagrantly contravenes the limitations the Constitution places places upon Congress, and therefore violates both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. H.R. 5 is purportedly an exercise of the Constitution's Commerce Power. Yet as I shall explain, its subject-matter--civil actions in federal and state courts--is not within the Constitution's meaning of "Commerce." Nor can H.R. 5 be justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause as incidental to the regulation of interstate Commerce. On the contrary, during the debates over ratification of the Constitution, leading Founders specifically represented that the subject-matter of H.R. 5 was outside federal enumerated powers and reserved to the states...

Even before the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reinforced the limits, Founders, such as Madison, Hamilton, and James Wilson, among others, represented that tort law and civil justice specifically were to be state concerns. True, Congress could erect and regulate federal courts with diversity jurisdiction, but only because of separate constitutional grants, not as a result of the Commerce Power. Indeed, I have never seen any evidence that the power to erect and regulate federal courts included authority to alter prevailing tort law even in those courts, and certainly not in state courts.

To the extent that H.R. 5 regulates health care in addition to civil justice, it is also outside the Commerce Clause. No less an authority than Chief Justice John Marshall said so, in Gibbons v. Ogden, a decision celebrated as an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Power. In that case, Marshall (himself formerly a leading Ratifier) stated that "health laws of every description"--presumably including laws governing health care litigation--were reserved exclusively to the states...

Up till now the state courts have been one of the few areas of life relatively untouched by federal meddling. That is as it was supposed to be: State court systems are central to state sovereignty. Moreover, the Constitution reserves most issues of civil and criminal justice to the exclusive authority of the states, rather than the federal government. When the Constitution was being considered, its supporters said explicitly that state court systems are constitutionally out-of-bounds for Congress...

HR 5 is advertised as addressing abusive lawsuits against physicians, but it goes far beyond that. It would regulate in detail just about every American lawsuit that has anything to do with health care: What an injured party can allege in his or her initial filing, the damages he or she can recover, how damages are disbursed, burdens of proof, what the jury may and may not consider, which state laws survive and which don't. HR 5 even directs state judges to conceal pertinent information from the jury. It's not certain the Supreme Court would uphold all of this bill. But it is certainly a flagrant invasion of local control. Here's a real irony: The Republicans supporting HR 5 justify it by parroting exactly the same ridiculous "Commerce Clause" claims the President uses to justify ObamaCare.

Partially in response to the Rob Natelson's April letter to Congress, the pro-tort reform side trotted out a corporate lawyer to write a defense of H.R. 5. The paper relies on what has become, since the early 1940s, the standard basis cited for all encroachments by the federal government into business decisions. Quoting from the ATRA paper:

Since the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn, involving Congress's power to regulate the production of homegrown wheat, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause quite broadly with respect to the regulation of economic activity... The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) has closely analyzed judicial precedent and concluded that 'there seems little doubt that tort reform legislation, in general, would be within Congress's commerce power.' Under its power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress may 'make such legislation applicable to intrastate torts, because tort suits generally affect interstate commerce.' With respect to the HEALTH Act, CRS has specifically recognized that '[m]edical malpractice liability is governed by state law, but Congress has the power, under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution (Art. I, § 8, cl. 3) to regulate it.' Healthcare is truly national in scope and fundamental to interstate commerce... By placing an upper limit on subjective and otherwise limitless pain and suffering damages against doctors and other medical professionals, Congress can promote a more cost-effective healthcare delivery system... H.R. 5 is consistent with the Tenth Amendment, which provides that '[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Other conservative and Tea Party-side legal experts revolted openly against this paper and H.R. 5, and chastised House Republicans for condemning ObamaCare in one speech and pushing the expansion of fedral authority over health care and states' rights in another.

Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center, the conservative legal superstar involved in the multistate lawsuit against ObamaCare in federal court, wrote in an op-ed on May 21: "But tort law -- the body of rules by which persons seek damages for injuries to their person and property -- has always been regulated by states, not the federal government. Tort law is at the heart of what is called the "police power" of states... Indeed, if Congress now can regulate tort law, which has always been at the core of state powers, then Congress, and not the states, has a general police power. This issue concerns constitutional principle, not policy: the fundamental principle that Congress has only limited and enumerated powers, and that Congress should stay within these limits. Constitutional law professors have long cynically ridiculed a 'fair-weather federalism' that is abandoned whenever it is inconvenient to someone's policy preferences. If House Republicans ignore their Pledge to America to assess the Constitution themselves, and invade the powers 'reserved to the states' as affirmed by the Tenth Amendment, they will prove my colleagues right."

Prof. 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, especially that federal tort reform legislation is an abuse of the Commerce Clause.

Prof. Ilya Somin of the George Mason University School of Law, another conservative legal expert who co-authored amicus briefs in anti-ObamaCare court cases, concurred with Prof. Barnett in a May 23 blog post. "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. In this post, I explained why federally mandated tort reform is, in most cases, both constitutionally dubious and unnecessary. The better way to restrict abusive tort suits is through interstate competition combined with constraints on states' ability to regulate conduct outside their borders." The previous post to which he referred was in February in which he wrote, "In my view, however, current precedent is badly misguided in allowing Congress to regulate virtually any 'activity.' Therefore, I think most federally mandated tort reform is in fact unconstitutional, even if the Supreme Court would permit it to go forward."

Yet another respected conservative professor, Jonathan Adler of the Case Western Reserve School of Law, wrote a very brief comment against H.R. 5 in support of an attack from an unusual source, an pro-tort reform advocate, about which I will write in a separate post. Prof. Adler wrote that, "support of a particular policy goal does not require abandoning a principled commitment to the broader federalist scheme." Professor Adler is a frequent contributor to the events and publications of the Federalist Society, considered the premier conservative-side legal organization in the country.

Professor John Baker, a Distinguished Scholar at Catholic University Law School, Professor Emeritus at LSU Law School, and frequent presenter at Federalist Society events, wrote on the Daily Caller website on June 22 that H.R. 5 and ObamaCare are two peas from the same post-Willard Commerce Clause pod:

To justify their efforts to nationalize medical malpractice law, House Republicans are stretching the Supreme Court's New Deal Commerce Clause jurisprudence almost as far as Democrats did for Obamacare. Both national medical malpractice reform and Obamacare are radically at odds with our constitutional structure of federalism, though Obamacare is especially radical because it represents the first time that the federal government has required people to purchase a product (health insurance).

What compels House Republican leaders to ignore the Constitution? Nationalizing medical malpractice law would not necessarily protect hometown doctors. Some states currently offer doctors better protection, without being subjected to federal bureaucrats. Other states would do so if doctors worked their own state legislatures, rather than relying on a Washington lobby, the American Medical Association.

The explanation for the eagerness of House Republican leaders to nationalize even more of the economy is a simple reality: both Congressional Democrats and Congressional Republicans like the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which allows them to expand national power. They would just do so for different purposes.

Prof. Baker went further, warning Republicans like Rick Perry that enacting a federal tort reform bill like H.R. 5 could boost the chances that the Supreme Court would rule favorably on the Affordable Care Act. "Seeing that Republicans are as willing as Democrats to nationalize different parts of healthcare, the justices might conclude that there is a Congressional consensus to nationalize all of healthcare. Since justices tend to defer to Congress, that might be enough to tip the scales in Obamacare's favor."

Is that really what Rick Perry wants? To boost the chances of victory for ObamaCare?

Rob Natelson returned to the subjects of federal tort reform and the Commerce Clause on July 18 in the course of a discussion on Chief Justice John Marshall and his signature case, Gibbons v. Ogden, on the Tenth Amendment Center website:

"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.

That makes FIVE conservative legal experts, bright shining stars in the conservative legal universe, standing against the concept of federal tort reform. Two other legal experts wrote about the unconstitutionality of H.R. 5, but they deserve special discussion in another post, because they're pro-tort reform advocates who recognized the unconstitutionality of H.R. 5.

Rick Perry used to be a sincere advocate of states' rights. He was against a federal tort reform bill as recently as last year.

Rick Perry, November 4, 2010, on CNN:

"One of the reasons why I was never for a national tort reform was because I think we do it better in the state of Texas... that ought to be our decision in the state of Texas."

Now? Well, he's under pressure from other Republican candidates, so he whipped out his big applause line last night.

Rick Perry, September 12, 2011, during the CNN-Tea Party Express debate:

"...one of the things that's really important, one of the things that the Fed Reserve chairman said was the most powerful, one of the most powerful thing that happened, was tort reform that we passed in that state. You want to talk about some powerful job creation, tell the trial lawyers to get out of your state and to quit costing businessmen and women. That's what needs to happen in the states. and it's also what needs to happen at the federal level, passing federal tort reform at those federal levels."

But you don't have to take my word for it, watch it yourself on YouTube below!

Governor Rick Perry took the gloves off in the CNN-Tea Party Express debate, declaring war on the 7th and 10th Amendments by calling for "federal tort reform," as follows:

"...one of the things that's really important, one of the things that the Fed Reserve chairman said was the most powerful, one of the most powerful thing that happened, was tort reform that we passed in that state. You want to talk about some powerful job creation, tell the trial lawyers to get out of your state and to quit costing businessmen and women. That's what needs to happen in the states. and it's also what needs to happen at the federal level, passing federal tort reform at those federal levels."

So never mind that SEVEN conservative experts on constitutional law, including the leading anti-ObamaCare professor in America and two noted ANTI-civil litigation experts, have written that federal tort reform is an unconstitutional abridgement of states' rights. Never mind that the long list of REPUBLICANS who agree with that assessment include former Texas judge and current Congressman Ted Poe; Rep. Ron Paul; Sen. Tom Coburn; Tea Party favorite Rep. Morgan Griffith of Virginia; and veteran Rep. John Duncan of Tennessee. Never mind that the co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, Mark Meckler of Texas, also says that tort law is a province of the states. Forget about the long letter by the bi-partisan National Conference of State Legislators, co-signed by a Texas state representive, that warned Congress against enacting federal tort reform because it violates states' rights.

Has Rick Perry or his vaunted team ever read what the Founding Fathers actually wrote about the right to a jury trial for civil suits? What about James Madison's famous admonition that the 7th Amendment right is "as essential in securing the liberty of the people as any of the pre-eminent rights of nature," and Thomas Jefferson's clear principle that trial by jury in all cases is "the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Doesn't he realize that
the protection of any of our inalienable rights depends, in large measure, on the right to unfettered access to state and local courts?

Conservatives like Rick Perry who think that "tort reform" can be limited to just medical malpractice cases are dreaming. When any of our rights are compromised, ALL of our rights are limited, including the rights to freely exercise our religion, bear arms, express our opinions without fear of being muzzled, and enjoy the benefits of our private property and labor freely offered.

No, Perry didn't care about constitutional principles at all. He felt the heat of all the criticism he was taking from the other candidates and grasped for the big applause line - "kill all the lawyers." He shot his mouth off in the heat of battle. Sound like a real President to you? What will he say when he's up against a real tough guy, like Ahmadinijad? If he's ignorant on some of the basic writings of our Founding Fathers, distrustful of local juries, and willing to throw the Constitution overboard for an applause line, how are we supposed to trust him with our lives and fortunes?

Ideas have consequences. I'll discuss the real-world consequences of Rick Perry's federal tort reform for victims in my next post. For starters, the consequences are that Rick Perry breaks his promises; that he's a phony "states' righter;" he's flip-flopped on the use of federal power and the Constitution as they apply to abortion, marriage, and the civil jury process; he's not a real "Tea Party" leader or representative; and he's a classic "crony capitalist." What else is there?

I've written often here, most recently on June 3, about the dangers of allowing Muslim communities to apply Shariah law, due to its denial of basic constitutional rights, including the right to a jury trial in civil and criminal cases. Several developments are worthy of mention.

Shariah law is on the march in Europe. A pro-Shariah group in Belgium has opened a Shariah court in Antwerp for adjudicating marital disputes and inheritance issues "in accordane with Islamic law," according to an English translation of a news site in Belgium. And in Denmark, a counter-terrorism expert warns that "Denmark, as we know it, can be destroyed in 10-15 years" as Shariah law becomes more dominant in Muslim neighborhoods:

"'Sharia law already operates in several neighborhoods. In Nørrebro there are some places where you have a parallel society, where religious dogmas run things next to the Danish,' integration consultant and anti-terrorism expert Mohammad Rafiq tells Ekstra Bladet. 'This way we'll have many neighborhoods where you as a Dane and democrat won't have any chance to object,' says Rafiq, who has visited many of the countries extremist neighborhoods."

Meanwhile, in the U.S. the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will review a lower court ruling that invalidated an Oklahoma ballot initiative to ban the use of Shariah law in state and local courts. The judges hear the oral arguments today in the case of Awad vs. Ziriax et al. Last November, a federal judge ruled that there was a "substantial likelihood" that the ban violates the Establishment Clause. The Oklahoma Attorney General's office disagreed with the ruling and filed an amicus brief with the 10th Circuit. An amicus brief in favor of the Oklahoma law and filed last year by a conservative legal group notes that Shariah law allows for the mistreatment of women through "'underage and forced marriage ... honor killing ... female genital mutilation ... polygamy ... and domestic abuse ... including marital rape ...' -- practices existing in Islamic nations governed by Sharia law that deprive persons of their lives, liberties, and pursuit of happiness." Hopefully, the 10th Circuit will agree with the right of the people of Oklahoma to define the body of law applicable in their local courts.

Several dozen Americans who were among the injured in terrorist attacks sponsored by Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi and thought they would receive a sizable payment under federal law have recently received alarming letters about their settlement from the U.S. Treasury. Each victim's claim for compensation was determined to be valid by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the Justice Department under the provisions of the Libyan Claims Resolution Act of 2008 ("LCRA"). Each victim surrendered his Constitutional right to pursue the Qaddafi regime in court in exchange for the promised settlement. Instead they face the prospect of being stiffed by their own government, which talked them into the deal. In the letters, the Treasury informed the victims that they will receive only 20% of the amount due to each of them at this time, with no timetable for paying the remaining 80% of the claim. Treasury cites a law that has nothing to do with the LCRA, but is a general statute applicable to the payment of any claim by the Treasury. As the Treasury website says, the amount to be paid is based on "the funds available," so the Treasury is telegraphing to all of the victims that there is a serious shortfall of funds available to pay those unfortunate Americans who are the last to be compensated for their injuries suffered at Qaddafi's hands. Under the LCRA and an accompanying letter issued by the then-Deputy Secretary of State, the Qaddafi regime was responsible for funding an account from which all valid LCRA claims would be paid. Obviously, Qaddafi didn't voluntarily transfer enough funds, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

The victims are asking Congress to pressure the Obama Administration to somehow ensure that all adjudicated claims are paid in full. As reported on The Cable website, one letter by Members has already been sent to the State Department, and I understand at least two others are under consideration. But the asset freeze agreed upon by the U.S. and European Union appears so sacrosanct that no one in Congress or the Obama Administration is making any serious move to enact legislation to force payment from the frozen funds, despite the fact that such a transfer has been done in the past for victims of Iranian and Cuban terrorism. As of now, there are no hearings scheduled and no bills introduced (although it could be drafted in an hour). Instead, the U.S. and E.U. have pledged to transfer the frozen assets to the rebels, some of whom fought for al Qaeda in Iraq against our troops. No Member in Congress has seriously challenged that agreement to date.

All this means the following: (1) The cozy relationship with the E.U. is apparently more important in Washington than keeping the promises made to U.S. citizens as determined by the Executive Branch in accordance with federal law. (2) An administrative action taken by the U.S. and E.U. now takes precedence over the Libyan Claims Resolution Act of 2008, a law enacted unanimously by Congress. (3) American victims of Qaddafi's terrorism might receive just 20% of what the Justice Department officially promised them, while Libyan terrorists among the rebels might receive 100% of the unfrozen assets. (4) Americans who trusted their government enough to trade their Constitutional right for a settlement might get stiffed by their own government. Does that make any sense to you? And since when does the Constitution encourage or condone any of that?

The Justice Department announced today that "Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in eight cities has resulted in charges against 91 defendants, including doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals, for their alleged participation in Medicare fraud schemes involving approximately $295 million in false billing." The alleged charges are reqally disgusting: a Detroit doctor allegedly billed Medicare for treating dead patients and for treatments lasting more than 24 hours in a day; a supervisor at a Miami community health center allegedly threatened residents of a boarding house that he managed with eviction unless they attended the center so he could overbill Medicare; and so on. As the press release from DOJ states, the defendants treated Medicare as "a personal piggy bank." And the DOJ press office informed me that NONE of the 91 charged in this new effort was an attorney.

This is just the latest in a long string of indictments and arrests by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which has charged over 1,100 defendants for allegedly billing Medicare more than $2.9 billion in false claims in just two years. And the overwhelming number of defendants in the cases are medical professionals - doctors, nurses, medical device company officers, and so on. And the perpetrators of the BILLIONS in Medicare fraud are not trial lawyers, the men and women who ensure that Americans can exercise their rights guaranteed under the 7th Amendment to the Constitution.

When the new "SuperCommittee" charged with meeting the provisions of the debt limit agreement start looking for big health care dollars to save, they should focus on Medicare fraud foisted on the taxpayers by medical pros. That's the REAL waste in the health care system.

The first GOP Presidential debate since Texas Governor Rick Perry officially joined the race will be held tomorrow night. Prior to his announcement, I asked whether he would truly be a 10th Amendment advocate, a claim he makes constantly, or whether he would flip-flop on such issues as the states' right to run their own courtrooms, which would deprive Americans of our 7th Amendment right to a jury trial for civil suits. I have some questions which I hope will be posed to Gov. Perry and other GOP candidates tomorrow night about their support for all of our constitutional rights:

7th and 10th Amendment rights or "fair-weather federalism"?

Governor Perry, you often assert that the federal government should stop encroaching on states' rights, accusing Washington of intruding "upon the rights of the states and individuals to make decisions about our own healthcare, our businesses, our money,..." But you've flip-flopped on your stand on a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution - you were against it until you were for it - and on the need for a pro-life amendment to end abortion on demand. And your position on "tort reform" is inconsistent with that of a 10th Amendment purist. Specifically, you've proposed an amorphous concept of "civil justice reform," citing the changes in Texas law you backed to sharply limit medical malpractice lawsuits and to force the losing parties in civil suits to pay all court costs. And in your book, "Fed Up," you wrote that Republicans are for "ending frivolous lawsuits through real tort reform." However, seven experts in constitutional law, including the leading anti-ObamaCare legal expert in the federal court cases, say that federal "tort reform" is not an enumerated power of the federal government and is unconstitutional. That expert, Professor Randy Barnett, accuses Republicans of being "fair-weather federalists" in pursuit of federal "tort reform," and asserts that tort law is the exclusive province of the states. Famous and respected conservatives and Tea Party leaders agree with that judgment, such as fellow candidate Ron Paul; Sen. Tom Coburn; the co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, Mark Meckler; and the former President of the socially conservative Family Research Council, Ken Connor. So will you guarantee now that as President, you will not support any sweeping federal "tort reform" bill which would override the rights of the states under the 10th Amendment to run their own courtrooms, and that you'll veto any such bill enacted by Congress?

Question for all candidates: Since many of you identify yourselves closely with the protection of individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, what is your understanding of the 7th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." James Madison, principal author of the Bill of Rights, called the right to a jury trial for civil suits "as essential in securing the liberty of the people as any of the pre-eminent rights of nature," a sentiment joined in by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and other Founding Fathers. How would you protect that right in federal and state courts? Is the 7th Amendment a "lesser amendment" in your mind than the 2d Amendment right to bear arms, and if so, why?

Bill of Rights & American law or Sharia?

For all candidates, but starting with Gov. Perry: Gov. Perry, some conservative experts and commentators have expressed concern about your relationships with pro-Islamist elements such as the Aga Khan and its associated entities, especially the Aga Khan Foundation, over its involvement in the development of a "Muslim Histories and Cultures Program" in Texas schools. Longtime critics of radical Islam such as Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have reviewed the course curriculum and questioned whether you are allowing the Aga Khan Foundation to present "a fantasy benign Islam, with all the violent and oppressive bits cut out." Strict Islamic Sharia doesn't protect the Constitutional rights of women as equal to men, and doesn't recognize basic Constitutional rights such as the right to a jury trial for criminal and civil cases. But a recent study by a conservative group warns that local courts are applying Sharia, not the U.S. Constitution and American law. In recent years, anti-Sharia activists have promoted a movement to ensure that American courts enforce only American laws and not those enforced elsewhere, such as Islamic Sharia law. Given your declared allegience to the Bill of Rights, will you endorse that movement, and propose measures to ensure that Sharia law is excluded from contemplation in civil and criminal cases in all courts in the U.S.? Will all GOP candidates also endorse that movement?

"Constitutional conservative" or "crony capitalist?"

Question for Rep. Michele Bachmann, in part based on the previous question for Gov. Perry: You describe yourself as a "Constitutional conservative" and, like Gov. Perry, say that you're for defending states' rights. You are recently quoted saying that "the current government is acting outside the bounds of the Constitution. Probably the most obvious would be this Obamacare and the individual mandate that is unconstitutional and is currently contained in Obamacare." But you are a co-sponsor of the most sweeping federal "tort reform" bill introduced this year in Congress, a bill which would effectively immunize health care and pharmaceutical companies which have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to your campaigns. Considering the conservative opposition to any federal "tort reform" bill on states' rights grounds, why shouldn't voters consider your declaration just another position by a "crony capitalist" who stands on the Constitution in order to help backers in the business community?

Religious freedom & right of conscience or abortion rights?

Question for all candidates: Last year, a federal court of appeals ruled that a pro-life Catholic nurse didn't have the right to sue the hospital where she worked and that forced her to participate in an abortion. The court ignored the nurse's Constitutional rights to freely exercise her religion and act in accordance with her conscience, rights explicitly recognized for medical personnel in federal and state law. This year, the Obama Administration rescinded a Bush-era regulation that provided conscience protections for medical workers so they could refuse to administer treatments they find morally objectionable. Will each of you commit to restoring the rights of medical workers to sue health care employers when the employer forces the employee to engage in morally objectionable treatments?