Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation and Associate Director of TheTeaParty.net, has been defending the 7th Amendment for much of the past year, and is among the national conservatives most quoted on the unconstitutionality of federal limits on medical malpractice awards. Judson’s years of experience in the courtroom as a litigator and prosecutor, and his years of political activism, endow him with special credibility on these issues. Last week, he challenged the conventional wisdom on the impact of Texas state limits on medmal awards in a post and a radio interview.

Judson posted ‘A hollow liberty’ on TeaPartyNation.com on July 9. In it, he discussed the deterioration of the constitutional right to a civil jury trial through tort reform laws. He then described a famous medmal case in Texas in which the victim was left with no means of exercising his right to hold the negligent doctor accountable in court, thanks to Texas medmal limits. Here is an excerpt:

“What good is a right if you cannot exercise it? That is not one of those, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound questions. Our Constitutional rights are under assault from various sources. Those who want to attack our rights have learned they can never get those rights repealed, so instead they simply try to make it impossible for those rights to be exercised.

What happened to Charles Caldwell is a terrible example of what has gone wrong. Caldwell suffered from Parkinson’s disease and went to a nursing home after surgery to recover. Among other things, a feeding tube was placed in his stomach because he could no longer swallow.

His son and daughter in law Bill and Kelly Putnam were visiting his father when the nurses at Signature Pointe Nursing home tried to give medications to Caldwell through his feeding tube. When the medicine did not go down the right way, the nurses tried the old fashioned method of “if it doesn’t go, force it.” After three tries it did not go. Finally Caldwell began to struggle and thrash. The medicine had gone into his lungs instead of going into his stomach. Caldwell drowned on medicine in front of his family.

When Putnam decided he was going to sue over his father’s death, he found the hard truth about Tort Reform. No lawyer would take the case. It was not that it was not a strong case. It was a strong case. Simply put, because of Tort Reform lawyers can no longer take those types of cases because they are no longer economically viable for the lawyers.”

Judson reminded his readers that it’s impossible for us to exercise our 7th Amendment rights if we state-imposed limits disincentivize lawyers to take the case. “By imposing caps on so-called “non-economic” damages, lawyers can no longer take these types of cases. Lawyers have staffs they have to pay. They have expenses such as the costs of their offices. Plus in cases such as these, the lawyer will advance the costs for expenses such as the required experts who must review cases before a suit is filed. Without a lawyer, the 7th Amendment Right to a jury trial is effectively gone.”

And he referred to recent studies concluding that Texas medmal limits have neither kept health care costs down nor attracted doctors to Texas. “The myth of tort reform is that it will reduce costs and will attract doctors to the profession. Unfortunately as with all myths, that one is untrue. Healthcare costs in Texas have not been reduced, nor are doctors flocking to Texas.”

Judson Phillips concluded with a warning for Americans about the future if Congress imposes a federal limit on medmal awards. “What has happened is that another right has been lost. Freedom is reduced and liberty has taken another step towards becoming simply a hollow shell.”

He was interviewed about this issue on July 11 by Terry Lowry for his nationally syndicated ‘What’s Up’ program, heard weekdays on 12 radio stations and on Sirius Channel 131, Family Talk Radio. You can download and listen to the first segment here and the second segment here. That program is the only nationally broadcast program on radio or TV to regularly defend and discuss our constitutional right to a jury trial for civil rights and deserves our support.

In a Washington Post op-ed posted October 28, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli promised to file suit in federal court against a federal tort reform bill should it become law. “And if it were ever signed into law — by a Republican or Democratic president — I would file suit against it just as fast as I filed suit when the federal health-care bill was signed into law in March 2010 (15 minutes later).”

Attorney General Cuccinelli strongly objected to S. 197, a bill sponsored in the U.S. Senate by eight Republicans, which would impose caps on awards in health care-related lawsuits and install a federal wage scale for contingent fee attorneys involved in such suits. The bill was slipped into a Senate Republican “jobs bill” in October by Republican leadership without the knowledge or approval of numerous Republican Senators, just to appease the AMA and other medical groups clamoring for special federal protection from civil liability. Attorney General Cuccinelli, a rising star in the conservative community for his lawsuit against ObamaCare and assertive defense of conservative legal positions, emphasized the constitutional right of each state to protect and run its local civil justice system:

“With Senate Bill 197 — legislation that would have the federal government dictate how state judges are to try medical malpractice cases and cap what state courts may award — several Republican senators have reminded us that federal impositions on states that run contrary to the U.S. Constitution and to the spirit of federalism have never been the sole prerogative of just Democrats. As a state attorney general struggling to hold back a flood of impositions by the Obama administration that violate federal law, the Constitution or both, it is disappointing to see so many Republicans making the same types of mistakes that President Obama and his allies have made…

Senate Bill 197 takes an approach that implies “Washington knows best” while trampling states’ authority and the 10th Amendment. The legislation is breathtakingly broad in its assumptions about federal power, particularly the same power to regulate commerce that lies at the heart of all the lawsuits (including Virginia’s) against the individual mandate of the 2010 federal health-care law. I have little doubt that the senators who brought us S. 197 oppose the use of the commerce clause to compel individuals to buy health insurance. Yet they have no qualms about dictating to state court judges how they are to conduct trials in state lawsuits. How does this sort of constitutional disconnect happen?“

Attorney General Cuccinelli’s promise to sue is the most forceful of a series of conservative and Tea Party-side condemnations of the Senate bill and of federal tort reform legislation in general. The libertarian Cato Institute recently announced that caps on medical malpractice lawsuit awards would endanger patients and wouldn’t reduce health care costs. The attorney who wrote the Senate Republicans’ court brief against ObamaCare, Carrie Severino, publicly urged Republicans to remove S. 197 from the jobs bill before introduction, but they ignored her. Professor Randy Barnett, one of the counsels arguing the key anti-ObamaCare lawsuit in federal court, accused S. 197 backers of being “FINOs” (“Federalists in Name Only”). In May, Professor Barnett accused House Republicans who backed a bill similar to S. 197 of being “fair-weather federalists.” Six conservative legal experts, including two who regularly criticize trial lawyers, joined Professor Barnett at that time in characterizing bills to federalize medical malpractice lawsuits as an unconstitutional violation of states’ rights. The non-partisan National Conference of State Legislators joined them in a letter to House Republicans against the House bill.

The AMA and its allies in the medical profession have pushed the federal tort reform bills, just as they have backed ObamaCare with its equally unconstitutional individual mandate. For 30 years, they’ve used their political muscle inside the Beltway, and millions of dollars in political contributions across America, as the way to persuade Congress, especially Republicans, to enact special immunity from civil liability, regardless of the constitutional implications. Republicans will have to ignore the medical profession’s misshapen view of Washington as the center of political power in order to protect our constitutional rights. Attorney General Cuccinelli’s forceful warning might be the nail in the coffin of the AMA’s dreams.

The inside-the-Beltway mentality that values campaign dollars over states’ rights is about to strike again. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, is about to force fellow Republicans, for the third time, to vote against the 7th and 10th Amendments and for H.R. 5, the federally imposed limit on awards in medical malpractice lawsuits, which is based on the same interpretation of the Commerce Clause as Obamacare and is just as unconstitutional. Not only that, but he’s doing it to claim that his committee is contributing billions of dollars of “savings” for the federal budget, based on CBO estimates. That’s the same CBO that missed the Obamacare budget estimates last year by a mere 100% and has a lousy long-term record of estimating budget savings over ten years. None of that matters to Chairman Smith, who’s apparently trying to convince “Big Medicine” that they should funnel their campaign contributions to Republicans.

Chairman Smith couldn’t quote a single constitutional scholar, Republican President or Founding Father for federal tort reform just three weeks ago in 8 hours of debate on the House floor over H.R. 5. Again he ignores states’ rights, promotes constitutional hypocrisy, and uses phony CBO numbers – that’s conservative leadership? It will be interesting to see what committee members Reps. Ted Poe, Louis Gohmert, James Sensenbrenner and Steve King do about Chairman Smith’s push, since all four refused to vote for H.R. 5 on the floor.

This hasn’t been lost on one Tea Party leader, Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation, who slammed Chairman Smith by name last week in a column titled, “Washington Games.” Mr. Phillips urged Chairman Smith to claim real savings in Washington waste and wrote, “Instead, Lamar Smith wants to play the usual Washington game. He wants to use his position to punish those he disagrees with, pass legislation that is every bit as unconstitutional as Obamacare, while ignoring the real issues of out of control spending that we face.”

Games, indeed.

The Constitution & Civil Justice subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing today on a proposed Constitutional amendment to give victims of crime additional rights during and after the prosecution of the criminal. Some states allow the victims to participate in the sentencing or plea settlement process or in other ways, and some do not in any part of criminal proceedings. The bipartisan “Victims’ Rights Amendment,” or VRA, was first proposed by President Reagan and has been championed by Members of both parties in Congress and Presidents of both parties.

One of the provisions in the VRA would entitle victims of crime “to restitution.” That’s great – I’m all for it – with no argument at all. But Committee Members should remember that the Founding Fathers already recognized that right by fashioning a civil justice system based in the God-given right to have civil claims heard before a local jury. The 7th Amendment was the only amendment in the Bill of Rights unanimously adopted by all of the original states. It reflects the centuries-old recognition of the right to civil jury trials in British law, back to the Magna Carta in 1215, and the Biblical recognition of that right in various texts in the Old Testament. The Founders described that right as “sacred” and “a valuable safeguard to liberty.”

Many victims of crime have, over the decades, exercised that right to pursue the assets of the criminal after the prosecution is completed. The successful civil suit against O.J. Simpson by the family of Ronald Goldman, who was killed in the attack, comes to mind.

And American victims of terrorism have had the specific right, added to federal law in the 1990s, to pursue restitution against state sponsors of terrorism. I’ve assisted victims of the 9-11 attacks, Qaddafi s reign of terror, and Iran-sponsored terrorism to obtain a measure of justice through legislation and administrative action. Last year, Congress enacted a special section in an Iran sanctions act to enable several groups of American victims to enforce a judgment against Iran in federal court. Recently, the first judicial ruling after that bill’s enactment was favorable to the victims, a promising development.

Members of Congress should remember that Founding Fathers didn’t consider the right to restitution to be exclusive to victims of crime or of any other specific act. They created ONE civil justice system, grounded in the unalienable right to a civil jury trial, for civil claims of all types and all origins. Victims of medical malpractice and product liability have an equal right in the eyes of God to seek restitution as victims of crime and international terrorism, and Congress shouldn’t seek to abridge those rights through “tort reform” or artificial caps on civil damages. Congress should spend its energy upholding 7th Amendment rights for all Americans in all circumstances.

I’ve written often about Rep. Ron Paul’s support for real Constitutional conservatism and states’ rights, including for protecting state civil justice systems from federal takeover through “tort reform” or limits on state medical malpractice lawsuits. Recently the conservative Club for Growth issued a “Presidential White Paper” about Dr. Paul’s votes on key issues, and they devoted an entire section to “Tort Reform.” It’s obvious that on this issue, the CfG is no more of a “Constitutionally conservative” group than many groups in the business community – check out the following comments on Dr. Paul’s stand:

The American economy suffers from excessive litigation which increases the cost of doing business and slows economic growth. The Club for Growth supports major reforms to our tort system to restore a more just and less costly balance in tort litigation.

Representative Paul opposes federal tort reform for the same reason he opposes most federal solutions–he believes the federal approach “damages the Constitution by denying states the right to decide their own local medical standards and legal rules.” To that end, he has voted against many tort reform measures in Congress…

Instead of traditional federal tort reform, he proposes “private contractual agreements between physicians and patients” that “enables patients to protect themselves with ‘negative outcomes’ insurance purchased before medical treatment.” In theory, Paul’s solution may help alleviate the situation, but it is politically untenable. While Paul’s idealism is laudable, he has not offered a viable alternative for dealing with a problem that is hurting American consumers and businesses, while diminishing our international competitiveness.

So when it comes to the civil justice system, the CfG treats the Constitution as just a “laudable ideal” that isn’t “viable” in dealing with “problems.” There’s nothing Constitutional about that stance. The Founding Fathers didn’t think that way. Dr. Paul doesn’t think that way, thank God. Neither do Republican Members of Congress like Reps. Ted Poe, Lee Terry, and Morgan Griffith, or Sen. Tom Coburn. Seven nationally respected experts on the Constitution, the National Conference of State Legislators, and Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler don’t think so either. They recognize that “a problem that is hurting American consumers and businesses” is no excuse for cutting the Bill of Rights in half.

The Club for Growth’s disdain for Constitutional limits on federal power is closer to the views of the pro-ObamaCare crowd than it is to the Founding Fathers or the Tea Party movement’s views. To the Club for Growth, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are movable targets subject to negotiation and the impact of lobbying and campaign contributions, not a set of firm principles of limited government protecting God-given, “unalienable” rights. Candidates seeking the support of the Club for Growth should be wary of their demands.

Two important Republican leaders sent signs in the past week that they finally recognize that federal tort reform laws are an unconstitutional abridgement of the right to a civil jury trial and each state’s right to run their own civil justice systems.

Rep. Paul Ryan gave an important speech recently at the Hoover Institution on his suggestions for reforming health care. I was pleasantly surprised to see him step back from his previous proposals for federal tort reform. In his Hoover Institution speech, he didn’t mention limits on medical malpractice lawsuits or tort reform at all. Contrast this to Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity,” the basis of the House Republican budget resolution, which included caps on noneconomic damages from health care-related incidents. That proposal, the long-time centerpiece of the federal tort reform agenda, was condemned as “fair-weather federalism” by conservative legal experts, such as top anti-ObamaCare counsel Randy Barnett, and opposed even by two proponents of lawsuit limits, Walter Olson and Ted Frank.

Then former House Speaker and Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich released his new “21st Century Contract With America,” with pages of new ideas for consideration by Republican voters. Early in his discussion of his legislative proposals, he states that replacing ObamaCare requires “lawsuit reform to stop the frivolous lawsuits that drive up the cost of medicine,” repeating the myths perpetrated by medical groups to hide the cost of their own deadly errors and wasteful practices. But beyond that, he has no specific proposal, such as the unconstitutional “caps on noneconomic damages” cited by so many politicians. For Gingrich, who has been a longtime advocate of federal interference in state tort law, this is progress; it reduces the mention of “lawsuit reform” to the status of a throwaway line.

Too many wise conservatives who say they value the Constitution and Bill of Rights remain ignorant of the facts that (a) neither health care nor tort law are among the enumerated powers in the Constitution and (b) the Founders added the 7th and 10th Amendments as reinforcements against unlimited federal power. Maybe the silence of Rep. Ryan and Speaker Gingrich in their recent pronouncements are evidence that the facts are finally sinking in among Republican leaders out there on the campaign trail.

On September 8, I reported on the latest effort in Congress to enable victims of the Deepwater Horizon disaster to hold BP and its partners accountable in court. Key Democratic and Republican Senators are attempting to compromise with shipping interests and their Senate champions, who oppose any change in maritime liability law, and end the unfair discrimination in federal law faced by the BP rig victims’ survivors. If the 11 workers killed on the rig had instead been working on land, or even hovering on a helicopter near the rig, their survivors would not have their 7th Amendment rights so unfairly limited by decades-old laws enacted before anyone dreamed of a floating oil rig. But old habits die hard, and shipping interests continue to enjoy economic and political advantages that apparently override, in the halls of the Senate, Constitutional consistency and American principles of equal legal treatment for all. Sen. Rockefeller cut more provisions from his bill. S. 3755, in an effort to mollify the opposition, and then tried to move the bill swiftly through the Senate, but numerous Senators have objected. The week ended with no action. It has now been 79 days since the House passed the SPILL Act by voice vote of both parties, with no response by the Senate.

To date, there hasn’t been a single minute of open debate in the Senate on any bill. All of the maneuvering and wrangling is being done behind closed doors, in an effort to quickly pass something that helps the victims before the Senate recesses for the election. But back-room discussions also empower the shipping interests and enable their Senate champions to avoid public scrutiny. If no deal can be made very soon, the Senate should face its Constitutional responsibility to publicly debate, write, and vote on a bill. The Senate should not adjourn without restoring the 7th Amendment rights of Americans injured or killed on sea-based work platforms. They should be given a chance to prove their case against BP in court. It’s the Constitutional way.

Welcome to a new website designed to inform Americans and influence policymakers about one of our basic Constitutional rights and the efforts to degrade that right. We want to educate the public and policymakers on the centuries-long history of the right enunciated in the 7th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to a jury trial for civil suits, the accelerating erosion of our 7th Amendment rights, and the current issues illustrating the problem and need for restoration of the Founders’ original intent. A string of court decisions and political developments are aimed at limiting the jurisdiction of the courts in civil suits; either limiting the role of the jury in civil suits or eliminating the jury altogether in favor of federal regulators through preemption; and/or unilaterally imposing onerous filing burdens on plaintiffs. Too often, discussions of these issues are trapped in the swirl of partisan politics without reference to the basic right, for which our ancestors fought and died for centuries, to seek redress over a civil wrong before a jury of peers. The limitation of Americans’ 7th Amendment rights has practical implications for efforts in a broad range of activities, from the prevention of illegal discrimination and protection of religious liberty, to ensuring the safety of consumer products, and even battling international terrorism.

The vast majority of Americans apparently don’t realize that the right to a civil trial by jury has its roots in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments drafted by Founding Father James Madison of Virginia, proposed to the states in 1789, and ratified in 1791. Madison drafted the Bill of Rights, including the 7th Amendment, in response to objections by delegates to the Constitutional Convention that the new Constitution did not protect certain basic human rights. The right to a civil trial by jury has its roots in almost 800 years of English law and is a corollary to the right to a criminal trial by jury. Article 39 of the Magna Carta, signed in 1215, can be translated as, “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” With the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the United States built upon the Magna Carta and expressly limited the powers of the sovereign in favor of the protection of “unalienable,” meaning God-given, individual rights. The degradation of any Constitutional right enunciated in the Bill of Rights threatens the entire superstructure of American Constitutional law and individual rights.

We will mix the historical precedent with the current outcome, the theoretical basis with the practical impact. We will quote the Founding Fathers, legal scholars, advocates of open access to civil justice in accordance with the 7th Amendment, and knowledgable political figures. We will put our readers on notice about upcoming events, pending legislation, and judicial decisions. I would welcome additional Contributing Experts and invite anyone with expertise who would post often here to contact me. I’ll also post guest articles and invite your submissions. We’ll have Twitter and Facebook pages available to post quick announcements and build an online community.

This website is my idea and is personally designed and funded, with no impetus or influence from consulting clients or any entity. The views and information expressed here are solely the responsibility of the Contributing Experts who post here and myself. My bio, including a description of my consulting business, can be found by clicking the “About” tab, but in summary, I am a lifetime Republican and a “Constitutional conservative.” I served as a political appointee of the Reagan Administration from 1983 until 1988; was a Republican counsel on Capitol Hill; and was nominated by President George W. Bush for a Presidential appointment, from which I withdrew after a Senate hearing. I’m dedicated to promoting the original intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and this website will serve that purpose. I look forward to your reasonable comments and suggestions.

In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 282-283 (1901), the Supreme Court equated the right to “free access to courts of justice” with the rights of freedom of expression, freedom to worship, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures and noted that all of them were “indispensable to a free government.” Here’s the full quote:

We suggest, without intending to decide, that there may be a distinction between certain natural rights enforced in the Constitution by prohibitions against interference with them, and what may be termed artificial or remedial rights which are peculiar to our own system of jurisprudence. Of the former class are the rights to one’s own religious opinions and to a public expression of them, or, as sometimes said, to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience; the right to personal liberty and individual property; to freedom of speech and of the press; to free access to courts of justice, to due process of law, and to an equal protection of the laws; to immunities from unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as cruel and unusual punishments; and to such other immunities as are indispensable to a free government.

Does the current Supreme Court so respect the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial for civil suits? See my previous post.

The nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislators has informed Congress of its “strong, bipartisan opposition” to the enactment of H.R. 5, the bill to sharply limit all civil suits against health care providers, including nursing homes, hospitals, and insurance companies. In the letter, NCSL defended the rights of the states to enact its own liability statutes and hold companies accountable before local juries. NCSL is also planning meetings of state legislators with Republican Congressmen to urge them to stand up for the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You can download the entire letter, and here are some excerpts:

“Medical malpractice, product liability and other areas of tort reform are areas of law that have been traditionally and successfully regulated by the states. Since the country’s inception, states have addressed the myriad of substantive and regulatory issues regarding licensure, insurance, court procedures, victim compensation, civil liability, medical records and related matters. In the past two decades, all states have explored various aspects of medical malpractice and products liability and chosen various means for remedying identified problems. Over the past several years, states have continued to revise and refine their medical malpractice laws and procedures…

Federal medical malpractice legislation inappropriately seeks to preempt various areas of state law. All 50 states have statutes of limitations for medical malpractice suits. All 50 states have rules of civil procedure governing the admissibility of evidence and the use of expert witnesses. Many states have caps on noneconomic damages and limitations on attorney’s fees in medical malpractice cases…

NCSL’s opposition will extend to any bill or amendment that directly or indirectly preempts any state law governing the awarding of damages by mandatory, uniform amounts or the awarding of attorney’s fees. Our opposition also extends to any provision affecting the drafting of pleadings, the introduction of evidence and statutes of limitations. Furthermore, NCSL opposes any federal legislation that would undermine the capacity of aggrieved parties to seek full and fair redress in state courts for physical harm done to them due to the negligence of others.”

The NCSL letter is signed by one Democratic and one Republican legislator. The Republican, Jerry Madden, is a conservative, West Point grad and Vietnam vet from Texas, home of numerous Congressmen involved in the tort reform battle. The NCSL letter arrives just after the opinion by Rob Natelson, top Tea Party-side Constitutional law expert, that federal tort reform is an excessive use of the Commerce Clause and violates the Bill of Rights. Readers should tell their Congressmen that the evidence is growing of the unconstitutionality of H.R. 5 and other attempts to take over the state-based civil litigation process.

I’ve discussed the anti-Constitutional nature of federal preemption of state law several times, most recently with respect to preemption in the financial services arena. The Supreme Court has furthered the preemption cause several times, notably in the regulation of certain high-risk medical devices such as pacemakers, with the effect of ending most lawsuits for defects, regardless of the harm to the device user. The Court is hearing several cases this term which could further aid the preemption cause and negate our Constitutional rights. One of them is truly illuminating, because it shows just who cares most about our 7th Amendment rights in front of the highest court in the land.

In Brusewitz v. Wyeth, argued before the Court on October 14, the issue was whether the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 immunizes vaccine manufacturers against lawsuits brought in state court for design defects. One section of the law immunizes vaccine makers from lawsuits “if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable” (quoting the law). Hannah Bruesewitz was immunized as a baby, then suffered multiple seizures and is now severely developmentally impaired. Hannah’s parents filed a petition for compensation in a special court created under the 1986 law. The court dismissed the family’s claim on the grounds that they had not proved that the vaccine caused Hannah’s injuries. The family then filed suit in a state court against the vaccine maker, Wyeth, which removed the case to federal court. The federal court dismissed the family’s claim on the grounds that it was preempted by the 1986 law. The parties disagreed about the meaning of the term ‘unavoidable” and whether Congress intended to immunize vaccine makers from virutally all lawsuits. The Center for Disease Control and the Obama Administration supported the notion that the policy behind the 1986 law supports immunity from state common law suits.

There is no question which side depended on and referred to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The amicus brief submitted by the Obama Justice Department makes no reference to Constitutional principles and ignores not only the 7th Amendment, but the 10th Amendment also; states’ rights are plowed over. In contrast, the brief submitted by the trial lawyers’ group, the American Association for Justice, and two other groups notes the Founders’ intent. “Indeed, the right to recover damages for wrongful personal injury is among the “absolute rights of individuals” that the Founders intended to guarantee to all Americans.” That brief also noted the critical weight that numerous Supreme Courts have placed in state law, respecting the 10th Amendment, in the following passage:

“While this Court has recognized Congress’ authority to preempt state tort laws entirely, it has also recognized that Congress rarely expressly preempts state tort law… The court considers such sweeping preemption ‘unusually powerful.’… (T)he presumption against preemption applies ‘in all pre-emption cases’ and can be overcome only by a showing of ‘clear and manifest’ purpose to preempt… Under this presumption, the Court assumes that the historic police powers of the State are not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.”

The trial lawyers’ brief then asserted that not all lawsuits should be preempted by the 1986 law; I refer you to other websites for the legalese. The Obama Justice Department didn’t even mention the Constitutionally-based presumption against preemption of state law – not a word.

Think about this a moment: the liberals’ favorite President defended giving federal bureaucrats and vaccine makers unchecked power over the drugs which immunize us from serious diseases, by promising to kill state suits. His Justice Department apparently doesn’t care about the rights enumerated in the Constitution. And the trial lawyers, the group that the business community and modern conservatives hate, stuck to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and defended the local jury system as the best means to assign responsibility for defective and dangerous drugs. Imagine that!

Prof. Ilya Somin of the George Mason University School of Law is the Co-Editor of the Supreme Court Economic Review, one of the country’s top-rated law and economics journals. His work has been published in the Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, and numerous media outlets. He has been quoted or interviewed by the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, and the Voice of America, among other media, and he testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. He’s expressed conservative positions on ObamaCare, eminent domain abuse, property rights, and states’ rights. Like Prof. Barnett, he’s co-authored amicus briefs on behalf of plaintiffs seeking to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional. In other words, he’s a Constitutional conservative, Tea Party-side legal expert, just like Rob Natelson and Randy Barnett.

And Prof. Somin is another of the growing group of the conservative legal experts now opposing any federally imposed tort reform law, starting with H.R. 5, the “HEALTH Act.” Writing yesterday on the legal blog, the “Volokh Conspiracy,” he commented favorably on Randy Barnett’s post of Sunday. Wrote Prof. Somin:

I’m happy to see that his critique is having an impact. 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 also on Volokh, and I admit that I missed it at the time. In that post, he wrote the following:

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.

Federal reform is also largely unnecessary to solve the problem of excessive tort awards. Interstate competition can be just as effective as federal mandates, often more so. If a state allows excessive tort suits, many businesses will refuse to operate there or charge higher prices. This in turn reduces state tax revenue, forcing state legislatures to curb their courts.

So now we have three real Constitutional conservatives on our side: Rob Natelson of the Independence Institute, GOP & Tea Party legal rockstar Prof. Randy Barnett, and George Mason Law Prof. Ilya Somin are all telling the Republicans that H.R. 5 and federal tort reform bills are unconstitutional. AND I’m sure there will be more. AND we have a bipartisan letter from the leadership of the National Conference of State Legislators saying the same thing.

To date, NOT ONE real Constitutional conservative, Tea Party-side legal expert will opine in favor of the constitutionality of H.R. 5. And I’d be shocked to see one do so, since that’s an intellectually dishonest position.