Posts


Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) threw his support behind a bill that will curb abusive medical lawsuits, lowering the cost of healthcare nationwide.

"This is a crucial step in replacing the President's healthcare law with common sense reforms that have been proven to work in multiple states such as Colorado, California and Texas," Gardner said.

H.R. 5, authored by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), places a limit on the non-economic damages that can be awarded in a medical liability lawsuit at $250,000 for states that do not have caps already. Currently, there are 28 states that cap medical liability damages, Colorado being one of them. This legislation will not override caps already in place.

Rep. Gardner is one of my favorite politicians in the state. However, my affection for him is overshadowed by my affection for the Tenth Amendment.

Which one of the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress authority to set malpractice award limits on states? No matter what one thinks of malpractice caps and tort reform, the issue is for the states, and not Congress, to decide.


To be blunt: H.R. 5 flagrantly contravenes the limitations the Constitution 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."
(See "Fedzilla Hungry Again: State Courts Threatened.")

It is hard to defend the Tenth Amendment when both Democrats and Republicans ignore it for their own political ends. I urge Rep. Gardner to reconsider his support of H.R. 5.

Tort reform is not a federal issue.

From a press release just now issued from Congressman Cory Gardner’s office:
Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) threw his support behind a bill that will curb abusive medical lawsuits, lowering the cost of healthcare nationwide.
“This is a crucial step in replacing the President’s healthcare law with common sense reforms that have been proven to work in multiple states such as Colorado, California and Texas,” Gardner said.
H.R. 5, authored by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), places a limit on the non-economic damages that can be awarded in a medical liability lawsuit at $250,000 for states that do not have caps already. Currently, there are 28 states that cap medical liability damages, Colorado being one of them. This legislation will not override caps already in place.
Rep. Gardner is one of my favorite politicians in the state. However, my affection for him is overshadowed by my affection for the Tenth Amendment.
Which one of the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress authority to set malpractice award limits on states? No matter what one thinks of malpractice caps and tort reform, the issue is for the states, and not Congress, to decide.
Conservative Constitutional scholar and Independence Institute Senior Scholar Rob Natelson agrees:

To be blunt: H.R. 5 flagrantly contravenes the limitations the Constitution 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.”

(SeeFedzilla Hungry Again: State Courts Threatened.”)

It is hard to defend the Tenth Amendment when both Democrats and Republicans ignore it for their own political ends. I urge Rep. Gardner to reconsider his support of H.R. 5.

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) threw his support behind a bill that will curb abusive medical lawsuits, lowering the cost of healthcare nationwide.

"This is a crucial step in replacing the President's healthcare law with common sense reforms that have been proven to work in multiple states such as Colorado, California and Texas," Gardner said.

H.R. 5, authored by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), places a limit on the non-economic damages that can be awarded in a medical liability lawsuit at $250,000 for states that do not have caps already. Currently, there are 28 states that cap medical liability damages, Colorado being one of them. This legislation will not override caps already in place.

Rep. Gardner is one of my favorite politicians in the state. However, my affection for him is overshadowed by my affection for the Tenth Amendment.

Which one of the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress authority to set malpractice award limits on states? No matter what one thinks of malpractice caps and tort reform, the issue is for the states, and not Congress, to decide.


To be blunt: H.R. 5 flagrantly contravenes the limitations the Constitution 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."
(See "Fedzilla Hungry Again: State Courts Threatened.")

It is hard to defend the Tenth Amendment when both Democrats and Republicans ignore it for their own political ends. I urge Rep. Gardner to reconsider his support of H.R. 5.

Tort reform is not a federal issue.

From a press release just now issued from Congressman Cory Gardner’s office:
Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) threw his support behind a bill that will curb abusive medical lawsuits, lowering the cost of healthcare nationwide.
“This is a crucial step in replacing the President’s healthcare law with common sense reforms that have been proven to work in multiple states such as Colorado, California and Texas,” Gardner said.
H.R. 5, authored by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), places a limit on the non-economic damages that can be awarded in a medical liability lawsuit at $250,000 for states that do not have caps already. Currently, there are 28 states that cap medical liability damages, Colorado being one of them. This legislation will not override caps already in place.
Rep. Gardner is one of my favorite politicians in the state. However, my affection for him is overshadowed by my affection for the Tenth Amendment.
Which one of the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress authority to set malpractice award limits on states? No matter what one thinks of malpractice caps and tort reform, the issue is for the states, and not Congress, to decide.
Conservative Constitutional scholar and Independence Institute Senior Scholar Rob Natelson agrees:

To be blunt: H.R. 5 flagrantly contravenes the limitations the Constitution 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.”

(SeeFedzilla Hungry Again: State Courts Threatened.”)

It is hard to defend the Tenth Amendment when both Democrats and Republicans ignore it for their own political ends. I urge Rep. Gardner to reconsider his support of H.R. 5.