25 Nov

6 ways to burn belly fat

HOW YOU CAN BURN BELLY FAT AND LOSE WEIGHT.

Any body ever told you losing weight is easy has probably never tried losing weight or maybe he’s trying to sell you a cheesy product one way or the other. The truth is that losing weight whether by dieting, exercising, surgery and even supplement is a gradual process and requires time, comittment and consistency.

There is nothing wrong in being plump as long as one is comfortable with it. However, if your body mass index indicates you are obese then it may predispose you to some medical condition like infertility, heart disease, diabetes etc then its time for you to lose weight.

Lets get down to business of the day. Almost every day of the week I get questions and emails from my subscribers asking me to give them a step by step plan they can use yo lose weight. The steps that has worked for others and can work for you if adhered to strictly includes:

1. HAVE A PLAN: like almost everything in life, if you fail to plan then you plan to fail. If you will ever burn that belly fat then you must have a mapped out plan. Design the process in such away as to fit into your routine activities. Almost 100% of people who use a brutal unrealistic plan to lose weight such as stooling, starvation, extreme exercise etc always gain weight back. This is because it does not fit into any healthy plan. Include in your plan a PRODUCT THAT HELP YOU TO LOSE WEIGHT. Check out this product here.

2. WEIGHT LOSS IS A JOURNEY NOT AN EVENT: While most weight loss products promise unbelievable losses in 3-days and in a week. To feed into our desperation we advocate for a gradual process in losing weight. Research has shown that losing weight drastically can further compromise your health. It is best to condition your mind and take it step by step. Be committed and consistent to each step.

3. ADOPT A HEALTHY LIFE STYLE: In your quest to lose weight, life style modification is key. It is an important way of burning belling fat fast. It is best to eat healthy small meal than to eat one heavy meal. Eat balanced diet, drink plenty of water, eat fruits and vegetables frequently. Stop eating late night night(this deprives you of adequate sleep).

4. BE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT LOSING WEIGHT:there is nothing that is impossible. Possibilities are product of the mind. If you can conceive it then its possible. Have a positive attitude about losing weight and believe that you can do it. The desire to get where you want to be should be enough motivation. When you think about how much you would want to have a beach body then you have to keep pushing on and get that fat diminisher.

5. EXERCISE 3-5 TIMES IN A WEEK: make sure you exercise at least 3 times in a week. You can register at a gym and use their equipments to work out. This might not be possible for people that have a full time job and those that are always busy. What you can do is to exercise at home by following a work out tutorial which you can get here.  You have to combine different forms of cardio and high intensity interval of training such as squats , side bends, jumping jacks, running etc this will help you burn belly fat and lose general body weight.

6. START NOW: many dreams has been shattered because of procrastination. Maintain that desire to lose weight and match it with actions. Don’t wait till tomorrow, don’t wait till after Christmas, don’t wait till you stop all bad habit, don’t wait till you have more money. Each time you wait you prolong your duration of reaching your goals. Get this product to help you burn your belly fat.

24 Nov

Understanding Dieting Rebound – No Surrender Weight Loss

Several years ago I tried a popular diet with PhenQ and lost 22 pounds in six months. Awesome! Friends noticed, clothes fit better, and I felt better. And then, long-story-short, I fell off the diet and gained back the lost pounds plus some. I bounced back from my diet plan to my to my old eating habits.

This type of story is repeated by thousands of well intended dieters over and over again. Now some people go on a crash diet to quickly lose some pounds prior to a special event. Those who crash diet for this reason are not really concerned about the fact that the weight will come back after the event. My concern is for people who are overweight and sincerely want to shed pounds and maintain a more healthy lifestyle.

So, what happens when we go on a diet? We change what and how much we eat. In doing so our body is thrown into a chemical imbalance…on purpose. The initial goal of a diet is to change various chemical actions, such as insulin response, thus adjusting our metabolic rate to, hopefully, burn fat and lose weight. This can be a good thing, particularly reducing the amount of sugar we consume.

One of the reasons for diet rebound is we don’t like the food we have to eat to lose weight. I’m not a real picky eater, but breakfast for the first week on one of the diets I tried included two foods I had never eaten…and still can’t stand today. I had to hold my breath to eat them. It was like taking medicine as a kid. However, it worked. My metabolism changed and I lost weight.

Here’s the lesson learned; if we don’t change the way we eat we can’t expect to lose weight. The good news is if you make it through the the initial metabolism changing process in a diet, foods that are “healthier”, like lean meat, fish, fruits and leafy green vegetables, actually seem to taste better and you enjoy eating them. At least, that was my experience.

That brings us to the one subtle hindrance to new diet success; former food cravings. Your body becomes responsive to your former eating habits and actually builds up a demand or craving for some foods, especially sweets and some breads. In my case, it was breads. I don’t like this analogy, but some believe certain foods become “addictive” and it’s very difficult to give them up. Nevertheless, when you overcome these cravings, and it could take a year or more, your new eating habits can become a long term lifestyle change for a healthier you.

One last thought. We’re told that if we take in fewer calories than we burn we’ll lose weight. This is true in most cases. But, for long term success the “fewer calories” diet should be one of balanced nutrition taking, in moderation, from all the major food groups. A diet from just one or two food groups may not provide long term success in your goal of a healthier lifestyle.

19 Nov

What are the most popular types of SEO services?

Nothing is better than SEO services that are quite similar to the promotion. It is improving the rank of the website in a few days. Three types of SEO services are available such as-

  • White Hat
  • Gray Hat
  • Black Hat

According to Google algorithm, if you want to improve the rank of the website genuinely then white hat would be the ideal option for you. It is really one of the best services. Bear in mind that, it requires time but surely, you will able to enhance the awareness of the brand in a few days. Apart from that, most of the people are making the use of Blackhat that is really dangerous. It will improve the ranking in the fraction of days, but Google is blocking the website. Following are the types of SEO services.

  • White Hat

Nothing is better than White hat SEO services that contain a lot of important things. It totally depends on the Contains. If you are posting the genuine content on the website with a perfect keyword, then Google will give you perfect backlink that improves the rank. If you don’t want to face any complicated problem in the Future, then you should choose the White hat. Let’s discuss the type of white hat SEO.

  • On-page SEO

One should visit on the https://designful.ca and grab details about the on page techniques. It is one of the most important parts of the White hat SEO where you have to post only Genuine content.

  • Off-page SEO

It is another part of the white hat SEO. As per professionals, most of the people are paying attention to on page techniques over other ones.

  • Blackhat

Did you know 50% of the website users are making the use of Blackhat? It is really beneficial, but if you are running any multinational company, then one should rely on the White hat technique. It is completely against the algorithm of Google.

  • Grey Hat SEO

Last but not least, it is a less popular technique that is a mixture of both techniques. If you don’t want to face any problem, then one can rely on the Grey Hat SEO. With the help of Grey hat technique, you will attract millions of visitors in the few days.

Bottom line

In a nutshell, before choosing the SEO techniques, you should grab the suggestions from an SEO expert.

18 Nov

Which GOP Candidates Will Really Support Constitutional Rights



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?

18 Nov

URGENT Senate Republican Leaders Demand Vote For Unconstitutional Tort Reform



I’ve written often here about the unconstitutional bill to crush states’ and individual rights that Senate Republican leadership slipped as a special section into S. 1720, the “Jobs Through Growth Act.” The section would impose a federal limit on awards in health care-related lawsuits (not just medical malpractice awards), and would establish a federal wage scale for just one set of American workers, the attorneys who litigate such cases for victims. Republican leaders added that section into the jobs bill without the knowledge of many Republican Senators, and a number of them told me personally that they oppose federal encroachment on state civil justice systems. Nevertheless, it appears that leaders are demanding that their members walk the plank for that section. Yesterday, the jobs bill was introduced as an amendment to another bill currently under Senate consideration, and the unconstitutional tort reform section is included in the amendment. We might see a vote on this bill as soon as tomorrow. They’re doing so despite the principled opposition of conservatives, such as Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli; the Cato Institute; anti-ObamaCare Professor Randy Barnett, Rob Natelson, John Baker; the National Conference of State Legislators; numerous House Republicans; and other conservative legal experts. Senate Republican leadership seems all too ready to sacrifice constitutional principles to reward the AMA and other medical groups, even though they stabbed Republicans in the back by backing ObamaCare – that seems to me to violate one of the first rules of practical politics about punishing enemies.

Seventh and Tenth Amendment advocates need to immediately tell Senate Republicans to pull that section out of the bill before any votes on the bill.

18 Nov

REAL Conservative Health Care VS GOP Establishment Plan



House Speaker John Boehner announced last week that House Republicans would decide on an Obamacare alternative health care plan to bring to the House floor for a vote. The Republican Establishment in D.C. is pushing a plan drafted by Republican doctors serving in the House, one section of which imposes federal medical malpractice limits to help… DOCTORS – not patients. Last year, the Republican doctors took over the task of drafting a health care plan for the House Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative Members that used to protect states’ rights in its proposals and avoided proposals for a federal takeover of health care and state tort law. As I’ve written many times here, the legal experts who crafted the litigation strategy against Obamacare and advise House Republicans on the Constitution say that federal medmal limits of the type in the RSC bill are unconstitutional and accuse the GOP of being “FINOs – Federalists in Name Only.” Rob Natelson, probably the chief legal expert in the growing movement for an Article V convention to reassert federalism principles, criticized the federal medmal caps section in the RSC bill in October. It’s worth remembering that the Supreme Court agreed with Rob Natelson, Randy Barnett, and other anti-Obamacare experts in its 2012 decision on Obamacare that the law isn’t a valid exercise of Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause.

Republican-side health care experts who accurately predicted Obamacare’s failures and are advising House Republicans on an alternative don’t favor federal medical malpractice limits either. Some recognize the conflict with the party’s stated goal of protecting states’ rights, and others know it really doesn’t save much in health care costs (see my post here for examples). Here are some of the numerous plans – truly conservative, actually market-based alternatives – that House Republicans should consider to avoid the Cronyist, anti-federalism landmine in the RSC bill:

James Capretta & Kevin Dayaratna, Compelling evidence makes the case for a market-driven health care system on the AEI website;

Avik Roy, Obamacare – The End of the Beginning on National Review Online;

James Capretta and Yuval Levin, Unwinding Obamacare published in The Weekly Standard;

Thomas P. Miller, Conservative health care reform – A reality check and The end of Obamacare – Just the beginning of better health care both also on the AEI website;

The Heritage Foundation, After Repeal of Obamacare: Moving to Patient-Centered, Market-Based Health Care ; and

Rep. Paul Broun, M.D. (R-GA), H.R. 2900, the Patient OPTION Act

SEVEN conservative, market-based health care plans, all with great ideas, none with unconstitutional, hypocritical, cronyist federal medical malpractice limits. Let’s hope House Republicans act according to principle.

18 Nov

Save the 7th 10th Amendments My Tea Party Nation Post



(I posted the following onTea Party Nationyesterday, summarizing several original posts here, but TPN restricts reading to registered members, so here it is.)

———–

Who will stand up to protect our unalienable right to a jury trial for civil suits, which is supposed to be protected under the 7th Amendment to the Constitution? That was a right fought for by English peasants on the plains at Runymede in 1215, and protected by Article 39 of the Magna Carta, the charter for English law and then American constitutional democracy. The Founding Fathers wrote early and often, explicitly supporting our right to bring our civil claims before a jury of our peers. Some quotes:

“I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” — Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine

“By a declaration of rights I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by juries in all cases…” — Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald

“The civil jury is a valuable safeguard to liberty.” — Alexander Hamilton

“In suits at common law, trial by jury in civil cases is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.” — James Madison

But today the right to a civil jury trial is under constant attack, steadily eroding our ability to protect our rights and hold others accountable for their actions. Conservatives and Tea Partiers should support the civil justice system for all kinds of reasons, such as to protect religious liberty, gun rights and the unborn; punish terrorist financiers; limit the power of bureaucrats, and ensure local control.

And who will uphold the 10th Amendment and ensure that state laws and jury decisions aren’t overruled by federal law through pre-emption? The 7th and 10th Amendments are joined at the hip; pre-emption of state jury decisions erodes both amendments and enhances federal agencies’ power at the expense of average Americans.

Tea Partiers might be surprised to find out that there’s one profession in America that depends completely on the exercise of rights protected by the 7th and 10th Amendments. It’s the trial lawyers, who depend on the access to civil justice at the state and federal level to defend our rights through civil suits. And it’s not just those who work in law firms filing lawsuits over product liability or personal injury. Trial lawyers working for non-profit groups sue to protect believers who want to practice their faith; they protect property owners from land-grabbing municipalities. Gibson Vance, the President of the American Association for Justice, the largest trial lawyers’ association in the world, spoke at the National Convention of the Federalist Society on November 20. Mr. Vance discussed the history of the right to civil jury trials, as protected in the 7th Amendment of the Constitution, and the current dangers to our rights through mechanisms such as federal preemption of state jury decisions.

Last week, Mr. Vance reiterated many of those points in an article posted on the Huffington Post, titled “Constitutional Conservatives and the 7th Amendment.” He urged newly elected Congressmen from the ranks of Constitutional conservatives and Tea Party members to protect our 7th Amendment rights in future votes. You can read the entire article there, and here are some excerpts:

The constitutional conservatives’ stated commitment to our country’s founding principles is at this point widely known. But what is not widely known is where this group will come down regardingtort reform” – or limiting people’s 7th Amendment right to trial by jury.

The right to a trial by jury for civil suits dates back almost 800 years, to the signing of the Magna Carta. Article 39 of the Magna Carta specifically guaranteed the right to a jury trial for civil suits and criminal cases.

Our Founding Fathers also agreed with the importance of a trial by jury. In the words of James Madison, “In suits at common law, trial by jury in civil cases is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.”

Votes on tort reform will be one of the first true tests of newly-elected Constitutional Conservatives. In fact, the House will vote on Wednesday to repeal the health care reform law and take steps toward creating an alternative plan that would include limiting the legal rights of patients. These members should consider how this idea conflicts with the limited government they promote.

The concept of tort reform is an assault on states’ rights and individual freedom. Though politics may try to disguise our commonalities, constitutional conservatives claim adherence to very similar principles as do trial attorneys: preserving and promoting individual liberty, responsibility and the rule of law.

Our founding fathers had no intention of making the 2nd Amendment more or less important than the 7th, or any other part of the Bill of Rights. We cannot pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to follow or to ignore.

Any Congress, whether run by Democrats or Republicans, which tries to impose “tort reform” or “medical malpractice reform” to limit our right to seek trial by jury for our civil suits, is actually acting against the express desires of the Founding Fathers and subverting our Constitution. If we’re going to oppose ObamaCare, which would tell us which doctors we can and cannot use, we should also oppose federal tort reform, under which Uncle Sam could tell us which doctors we can’t sue when they screw up.

18 Nov

Respected Health Policy Legal Experts Slam Federal Tort Reform Idea



Two highly respected health policy experts and a conservative legal expert who served in the Reagan Administration have joined with the many health policy and legal experts who doubt the utility or constitutionality of federally imposed limits on damages in medical liability lawsuits.

Amitabh Chandra is Professor of Public Policy and Director of Health Policy Research at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, and is a member of CBO’s Panel of Health Advisors. He has testified before Congress, his research has been featured in media around the country, and he has received prestigious awards for his research. Among his many affiliations, Dr. Chandra is a Visiting Scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. He has written numerous pieces on the cost of medical liability litigation and the outcomes of medical malpractice litigation.

So it might have been a surprise to supporters of federal medmal limits that on September 16, Dr. Chandra tweeted the following:

Dr. Chandra knows that even the CBO’s flawed methodology for estimating the ten-year costs of federal medmal limits produces a miniscule result that doesn’t save the taxpayers any money. In response to his tweet, I tweeted:

In late August, Dr. Chandra described the assertion that federal tort reform is “vital” as a “train wreck” in this tweet:

Dr. Chandra sides with many Republican-side health policy expert who realize the uselessness of federal medmal caps, one of whom is Thomas Miller, also of AEI. A former senior health economist for the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), Mr. Miller is the co-author of Why ObamaCare Is Wrong For America (HarperCollins 2011) and heads AEI’s “Beyond Repeal & Replace” health reform project. He has testified numerous times before Congress on health policy issues.

Mr. Miller recently wrote, “Conservative health care reform: A reality check,” in which he discussed numerous conservative policy measures that Republicans could propose to replace Obamacare. Throughout that piece, he never even mentioned federal medmal caps as an option. That’s nothing new for Mr. Miller, who has repeatedly shunned federal medmal caps as a useless and anti-states’ rights vehicle proposed by Republicans who should know better. Other Republican-side health policy experts, such as Jim Capretta and Avik Roy, also eschew federal medmal caps for the same reasons.

Then there’s Prof. David Wagner of Regent University Law School, who served as a political appointee in the Reagan Justice Department and as a Republican counsel on Capitol Hill, and his opinions on constitutional law have been published in numerous newspapers and journals. Prof. Wagner wrote last week that a new healthcare bill proposed by some House Republicans includes alternatives that are, “from a standpoint of principled federalism, a disheartening thing to watch.” That bill, H.R. 3121, includes the old, tired cliches of federal medmal caps and a national salary structure for attorneys – stuff that’s been panned by the Randy Barnetts & Rob Natelsons of America for years. Prof. Wagner even used Randy Barnett’s favorite term to describe the Republicans who leave their allegiance to states’ rights at the courthouse door: “In moving it forward, though, I hope this particular GOP House, which took over the majority in January 2011 with claims of unprecedented concern for constitutionality of legislation, will ask itself questions about ‘fair-weather federalism.'”

Republicans who co-sponsor H.R. 3121 are just proving that they don’t have serious, fresh, truly conservative ideas to replaces Obamacare, just the same old same old.

18 Nov

This is the way our Constitution disappears Its nibbled away



That was how GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul described the impact of federal tort reform law, in the face of the Founding Fathers’ clear mandate to protect each state’s authority over its civil justice system. He was discussing the need to protect states’ rights in all circumstances during the Fox News/WSJ Presidential debate in South Carolina. Rick Santorum defended his support for a nationwide ban on lawsuits against gun manfacturers, and attacked Ron Paul’s vote against that ban. Ron Paul stood on the high ground of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment and never relinquished it. Here is the full exchange, copied from the Fox News Insider website:

SANTORUM: I’ve been a strong — again, lifetime A-plus record with the NRA, worked with them. They came to me repeatedly when I was in the Senate to help them and — and — and sponsor legislation and work toward making sure in ensuring gun rights. Contrast that with Congressman Paul. And one of the most important things that we did in — in — in protecting the Second Amendment — and I provided a leadership role on it — was the gun manufacturers’ liability bill. There were a lot of lawyers out there who were trying to sue gun manufacturers and hold them liable for anybody who was harmed as a result of the gun properly functioning. And we — we went forward and passed, with the NRA’s backing, a bill that put a ban on those types of lawsuits. If that ban had not been passed, if that gun manufacturer’s liability bill, removing them from liability from that, had that not been passed, there would have been no gun industry in this country and there would have de facto been no Second Amendment right. Congressman Paul voted against that bill. And — and that’s a very big difference between someone who actually works with the gun — Second Amendment groups for — for legislation that can protect that right and someone who says they’re for Second Amendment, has attacked me on my Second Amendment issues, which you just referred to, and here’s a man that would have wiped out the Second Amendment by — if his vote would have been — carried the day.

BAIER: Congressman Paul?

PAUL: Hardly would that wipe out the Second Amendment. But the jurisdiction is obviously with the state. Even when tort law is involved with medical malpractice, which is a real problem, now, our governor worked on and our state has done a little bit on medical liability. I think that’s the way it should be handled. You don’t have — you don’t have national tort law. That’s not part of the process. That should be at the state level. So to argue the case that that does away with the Second Amendment, when I’m the one that offers all — all the legislation to repeal the gun bans that have been going on (inaudible) everything else. (APPLAUSE) I mean, I’ve introduced legislation like that. So that’s a bit — a bit of an overstretch to — to say that I’ve done away with the Second Amendment.

SANTORUM: No, I need to respond to that, because the fact is, if we did not have a national liability bill, then people would have been able to go to states like, say, Massachusetts or New York and sue gun manufacturers where they would not pass a gun liability bill. So unless you have a national standard to protect guns –manufacturers of guns, you would create the opportunity for the elimination of guns being manufactured in this country and de facto elimination of the right to bear arms. (APPLAUSE)

PAUL: Well, this is the way — this is the way our Constitution disappears. It’s nibbled away. You say, well, I can give up on this, and therefore, I’ll give that, and so eventually there’s nothing left. But, no, tort law should be a state function, not a federal function.

18 Nov

Top Tea Party Constitutional Law Expert Slams HR 5



Rob Natelson, one of the leading Constitutional scholars of the Tea Party movement, declared on Tuesday that “H.R. 5 flagrantly contravenes the limitations the Constitution places places upon Congress, and therefore violates both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.” That bill, as I’ve described numerous times here, would place new federal limits on lawsuits filed against a broad range of health care-related companies, including doctors, hospitals, drug & device companies, insurance companies, and nursing homes. Professor Natelson is an expert on the Founding Era; a former Republican candidate for Governor of Montana; and now Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Colorado, a non-partisan, free-market-oriented public policy research organization. Writing in his personal capacity to the Chairmen and ranking Members of the House Judiciary and Energy & Commerce Committees, he cited the Founders’ writings for concluding that (1) civil actions in state and federal courts are not “commerce” under the Commerce Clause; and (2) H.R. 5 is not justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Moreover, according to Professor Natelson, the proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause excludes “health laws of every description,” a phrase used by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in the landmark case of Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). Finally, Professor Natelson asserts that the section of H.R. 5 which purportedly protects states from pre-emption “grants protection only when the state undertakes policy choices preferred by Congress.” He describes that section as “more in the nature of an insult to the states than a protection of federalism.”

Professor Natelson also posted the letter on The Electric City Weblog in an entry titled, Yet MORE disregard for the Constitution — this time from Republicans. You can download Professor Natelson’s letter from that site (4.6 MB Acrobat). I hope you will disseminate his letter widely.