Worry over security played a big role in the presidential campaign -- and plays it still. For persisting in
of D.C. is the naive if popular opinion that government is "on our side" -- that it is an impartial protector
even seeing to it that we shall not want. Sure.
In "Shakedownþ" Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, says su
opinion leaks. Our Framers were far above such leakiness. Thus did their constitutional checks and balan
to stem abuse of power. They knew that Brutus still lurks about, that as Thomas Jefferson noted in 1788,
natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
That gain is tracked by the author. He sees Washington, D.C.'s leading industry as not tourism but spe
interests milking a giant, most cooperative cash cow, with consumers and taxpayers getting hit by many
"baseless lawsuits."
Apart from antitrust, the extortion lobby works three routes: one, through victimizing smokers and a b
socked tobacco industry; two, through anti-gun advocates circumventing the Second Amendment and sta
legislatures by suing in court and in the process victimizing gun manufacturers and potential gun owners
three, through seductive tort liability and antitrust systems hobbling our economy via perverse "regulatio
through litigation."
Mr. Levy titles part one of his two-part book "Tort Law as Litigation Tyranny" and part two "Antitrust
Corporate Welfare for Market Losers." This libertarian pulls no punches.
But what about the rising tide of tort cases that push up, among other things, medical malpractice insu
premiums to six-figure heights and force many doctors, such as gynecologists and obstreticians, out of bu
Up go the costs of of office and hospital visits, hurting many family budgets.
The author supplies a neat reply. As a federalist as well as a libertarian, he believes in states' rights, in
Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to t
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
He adds, "There is no constitutional right to health care." He sees state medical malpractice reform as
ubiquitous. He cites more than three dozen states with damage caps, with all 50 states passing or conside
some kind of malpractice reform.
Mr. Levy decries the fact that many congressional Republicans as well as liberal Democrats milk an ex
lobby. The author would invoke the 14th Amendment to check state tort laws which deny both procedura
Page 1 of 2 Washington's extortion lobby -- The Washington Times
2/22/2005 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050219-110442-5649r
substantive protection against quasi-criminal punishment.
Federalist no. 78 is persistent in its sort of justifications of the Constitutions vagueness. The letter claims that the judiciary branch is of the least danger of t...
Gunther, G. (1991). Constitutional Law. Twelfth Edition. New York: The Foundation Press, Inc. pp. 1154-1161.
In the modern day, health care can be a sensitive subject. Politically, health care in America changes depending on whom is President. Obamacare and Trumpcare are different policies regarding health care, which many people have passionate feelings towards. However, not many Americans are informed about Norman Daniels’ view on health care. Throughout this paper I will be outlining Norman Daniels’ claims on the right to health care, and the fundamental principles in which he derives to construct his argument. By means of evaluating Daniels’ argument, I will then state my beliefs regarding the distributive justice of health care.
Cutler, Llyod N. "If it aint broke keep your amendments off my constitution." Washington Monthly, 1 Sept. 1997. Bigchalk Library. Proquest. Centreville Hs Lib.; Clifton, Va. 12 May. 2005 www.library.bigchalk.com.
Rehnquist, William H., Brennan, William J. "A Casebook on the Law and Society: What Rights
For hundreds of years doctors and other medical professionals have gotten away with little to no punishment when doing wrong in the medical field. Medical Malpractice happens in the care of the reckless medical professional and can be stopped by the correct supervision and discipline. Although medical malpractice is something huge, it could be eliminated by just taking a little extra time and review the care that is being given to a patient. Would you allow someone to give the care you’re giving to others, to your own family? You need the bed, so you discharge early. Patients aren’t properly informed. Legal documents aren’t thoroughly explained. Shortage of staff, hospital downsizing, or mergers. (“Nursing Center”) The only thing that the medical team should be worried about it the care of all of the patients. The medical field would become more advanced if the actual medicine was practiced the right way. Lives are being compromised everyday with incompetent doctors, practicing medicine. Medical Malpractice can be solved with the buckling down of the medical professionals, and the administration that watch over these professionals. Medicine is a complicated field, where lives, money, and careers are put on the line for such an important matter. Together, we can lessen, even eliminate Medical Malpractice all
However, critics of Jackson and democracy called him “King Andrew I” because of his apparent abuse of presidential power [vetoing]. These critics believed he favored the majority so much that it violated the U.S. constitution, and they stated he was straying too far away from the plan originally set for the United States. Because of the extreme shift of power to the majority, the limiting of rights of the few [merchants, industrialists] and the abuse of power under Jackson’s democracy, the foundational documents set in the constitution was violated, and the work of the preceding presidents were all but lost. During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms.
The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School. Ed. Fray, William C. April 2000. Yale University. 1 May 2000. (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wilson14.html)
Since the advent of human government, one of the principle fears held by the constituents of the government has always been to prevent any form of tyranny or abuse within it. Tyranny can be loosely described as one person or a group of people having total power in a government leading to the subjugation and oppression of people’s rights. Many new nations wish to eliminate any aspect of their government that may eventually lead to tyranny. The United States was no different in this respect; the framers of the Constitution longed to have no signs of tyranny in their government because they had gone to war with Britain for that very reason. In 1787, a group of fifty-five delegates came from throughout the states to meet in Philadelphia to discuss the problems with the current government. The existing Articles of Confederation posed a monumental problem for these individuals; they recognized that the central government was almost entirely powerless under these articles. Besides this, another problem was that the government lacked a court system or a chief executive. The central government did not possess the power to tax the states either. These problems warranted change which prompted these men to get together. This new constitution they were to create was supposed to guard the people against all kinds of tyranny whether it be of a few, the many or majority, or even a single individual. This seemed virtually insurmountable a task to accomplish but was ultimately achieved. The Constitution guards against tyranny by having a central and state government that cannot overrule or have more power over the other, establishing the separation of powers to keep anyone from abusing it, and having a sys...
Anastaplo, George. The Amendments to the Constitution: A Commentary. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1995. Print.
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
Rising medical costs are a worldwide problem, but nowhere are they higher than in the U.S. Although Americans with good health insurance coverage may get the best medical treatment in the world, the health of the average American, as measured by life expectancy and infant mortality, is below the average of other major industrial countries. Inefficiency, fraud and the expense of malpractice suits are often blamed for high U.S. costs, but the major reason is overinvestment in technology and personnel.
Safranski, and Muen Bae. "The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws:." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 56.1 (2010): 41-50. Web.
As we have clearly seen, medicine for profit is not solving the problems of the healthcare system and many people are going bankrupt, dying, and choosing suicide over costly bills. Maybe we should learn from all of these situations and numbers and see that, like the UK did, we should be looking at ways to expand our basic human rights to include healthcare. The question at hand was is healthcare a right or a privilege, reviewing all facts, and data given you will see that Health Care in the United States is a privilege. It seems very vile to have resources, and services to deny a person who has a curable illness or disease, because they don’t have proper health care. However, this is the society we live in where liberty and justice for all comes before healthcare for all.
This includes how litigious Americans are, the recent explosion of tort litigation, frivolous lawsuits, litigation lottery, and jumbo verdicts, This argument assumes that Americans are suing one another every chance they get. If this were true, it would be a significant concern. There is little empirical support for the alleged explosion of tort litigation. For example, from the 1980s to the early 2000s, tort cases filed in Texas, generally considered an active tort reform state (September 2003 Texas started their major reform capping general damages to $250,000), district courts decreased from 9.4% of civil filings to 8.6%. Also in Texas, between 1995 and 2000, "the filing rate for all tort cases decreased by 31.7% (Daniels & Martin, 2015). Daniels and Martin also reference an interesting study performed by Professor Bert Kritzer on the screening performed by plaintiffs' attorneys. Kritzer's research found that nearly 70% of potential personal injury claims, and over 80% of potential malpractice claims, were declined representation because of either a lack of evidence of liability or small damages. Thus, it is hard to believe that frivolous lawsuits are actually a serious problem if attorneys are screening the majority of the potential claims that are brought to them. Explosion of tort litigation is an example of how popular belief often overcomes statistical