Medical Care Reform Act

Medical Care Reform Act

---

113th Congress
1st Session
S. ____
To amend or repeal certain unconstitutional legislation concerning health care.


IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE
January 25, 2013
Mr. ROLAND of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Commerce Committee.

---

A BILL

To amend or repeal certain unconstitutional legislation concerning health care.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the 'Medical Care Reform Act of 2013'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND AUTHORITY.

1. The Congress finds that funding and providing medical care as a transfer of wealth from one group to another is unconstitutional, a violation of U.S. Const. Article I Section 8 Clause 1 that requires public expenditures be only for the general welfare and not for the benefit of one group at the expense of another; however,
2. The Congress also finds it is not unconstitutional to fund research, development, and testing of new medical methods of general benefit to all, or to fund and provide medical care for persons injured by government or preparatory for or in the course of government service or militia, or to prevent the spread of contagious disease, or to make use of capacity created for that purpose that would otherwise be wasted.
3. The authority for this act is the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 1.

SEC. 3. ENACTMENT AND REPEALS.

1. The following acts and amendments thereto are hereby repealed or amended as provided in (2) of this section:

• PL 86-778 Social Security Amendments of 1960 (Kerr-Mills aid)
• PL 89-97 Social Security Act of 1965
• Medicare Secondary Payer Act of 1980
• PL 100-360 Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988
• PL 105-33 Balanced Budget Act of 1997
• PL 108-173 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010

2. With the exception specified in (3) of this section, the above acts are amended as follows:

a. The sole ultimate purpose of funds expended pursuant to this act shall be research, development, and testing of new medical methods which lead to being able to provide a long life of youthful good health to all at a cost almost anyone can afford. To that end,

b. Medical treatment shall be provided only as an incident to research and testing studies, and not to those whose treatment does not serve a research and development objective.

c. Expenditures under this section (2) shall  not exceed tax receipts dedicated to them, and under no circumstances shall it be paid by borrowing or by donations from any financial institution.

3. Existing programs to fund and provide medical care for persons injured by government or preparatory for or in the course of government service or militia, or to prevent the spread of contagious disease, or to make use of capacity created for that purpose that would otherwise be wasted, are not to be affected by this act.

SEC. 4. TRANSITIONAL.

1. Current obligations for services performed as of the date of enactment of this bill shall be paid.
2. Conversion from a treatment system to a research system shall be phased in, after four months at the rate of five percent per month for twenty months, to be completed by the end of the second year.
END.

Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2013

Campaign Finance Reform Act

---

113th Congress
1st Session
S. ____
To amend campaign finance acts to bring them into compliance with the United States Constitution.


IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE
January 25, 2013
Mr. ROLAND of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

---

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and amendments thereto, to bring them into compliance with the United States Constitution.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the 'Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2013'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND AUTHORITY.

1. The authority for this act is the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 1, Section 4, and Section 5 Clause 2.
2. Application of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and amendments thereto, to persons who are not current members of the United States Congress is unconstitutional.

SEC. 3. ENACTMENT AND REPEALS.

1. Provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972 (FECA, Pub.L. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3, enacted February 7, 1972, 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.), the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) , and amendments thereto, that apply only to persons not current members of the United States Congress, are hereby repealed, retroactively.
2. Remaining provisions shall apply only to current members of the United States Congress while they hold that office.
3. The rule of construction for all cases arising under this act shall be the presumption of nonauthority.

SEC. 4. REMEDIATION.

Persons injured by the repealed provisions while they were enacted shall be entitled to just compensation therefor, upon adjudication in the United States Court of Claims, or other court of competent jurisdiction.
END.

Abuses for which one can't get a jury trial

The jury is often recommended as the principal correction on government abuse, and it is urged to educate the public on how to serve on a jury, but if we examine a wide range of kinds of cases, we can find many for which the target of abuse can't get a jury. Here are a few, and recipients may be able to add to it:

1. Abuse of rights by a government official such as a cop
   
1. File criminal complaint under 18 USC 241, 242
1. Prosecutor refuses to prosecute, or takes to grand jury with recommendation they no-bill it; or
2. Judge rules there is no question of fact, therefore no right to a jury; or
   
3. Prosecutor takes case to trial, but neither he nor defendant request a jury, because the judge is a former prosecutor who likes cops; or
4. Judge directs jury to acquit: or
5. Judge removes jurors from panel until he gets jury he wants
   
6. Case dismissed
   
7. Remedy: Private criminal prosecution, which will require electing official to provide for that by law
   
2. File civil petition under 42 USC 1983, or under Bivens precedent or other theory of law
   
1. Dismissed by judge for lack of standing, failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted
2. Never get to apply for a jury
3. Appeal it, but no jury available on appeal
4. Appeal dismissed
5. Remedy: Elect different judge or judge-appointing official, or elect officials who will pass reform laws
   
2. Individual sues official or government for damages or for contract payment
1. Government claims official or sovereign immunity, or
2. Government waives sovereign immunity and consents to be sued
3. Individual wins judgment
4. Can only collect by applying to admin for payment from fund appropriated for purpose
5. Admin ignores judgment and refuses payment
6. Individual seeks writ of mandamus, which is ignored; or
7. Mandamus issued, and admin agent ignores it
8. Appeals denied until all admin remedies are exhausted
9. Individual runs out of money to pursue claim, and no legal fees available to interest lawyer on contingency
10. Remedy: Elect officials who will adopt constitutional amendment
3. Individual files writ of habeas corpus, or other writ
1. Judge refuses to act on writ; or
2. Respondant refuses to respond; and
3. Judge takes no action against respondant
4. Appeal denied because no issue of law on which appeal can be made
5. Remedy: Elect officials who will adopt constitutional amendment
4. Judge sanctions lawyer large amount of money for making arguments he doesn't like, pays money to opposing counsel
1. No right to a jury
2. Remedy: Elect officials who will pass law providing for a right to a jury
   
5. Administrative proceeding (such as tax court) rules wrongly against individual
1. Wronged individual takes it to Art. III court
2. Art. III court "defers" to finding of admin agency, putting burden of proof on individual
3. Judge summarily finds for admin agency with no opportunity for jury
4. Individual appeals, but no jury available on appeal
5. Remedy: Elect officials who will adopt constitutional amendment
6. Family court awards custody to one spouse, levies child support on other
1. No right to a jury on custody issue
   
2. Judge orders noncustodial spouse to jail for nonpayment of child support as "civil contempt", or garnishes his wages in state that allows that
3. No right to a jury on civil contempt
4. Remedy: Elect officials who will adopt constitutional amendment
7. Probate court unjustly settles estate
1. Divides estate among cronies, lawyers, court-appointed administrators
2. No right to a jury on probate
3. Remedy: Elect officials who will adopt constitutional amendment
8. Bankruptcy court unjustly settles assets of bankrupt
1. Divides assets among cronies, lawyers, court-appointed administrators
2. No right to a jury on bankruptcy
3. Remedy: Elect officials who will adopt constitutional amendment
9. One party unjustly gets injunction, or is denied injunction
1. No right to a jury on injunctions, except in a few states like Texas
2. Remedy: Elect officials who will adopt constitutional amendment
10. Individual prosecuted civilly for unauthorized practice of law
1. No right to a jury on UPL
2. Remedy: Elect officials who will adopt constitutional amendment
11. Individual ruled incompetent, consigned to nursing home or asylum
    
1. No right to a jury on competency hearings
2. Remedy: Elect officials who will adopt constitutional amendment
12. Property taken by eminent domain
1. No right to a jury on eminent domain
2. Remedy: Elect officials who will adopt constitutional amendment
13. Non-judicial foreclosure
1. No right to a jury on non-judicial foreclosure
2. Remedy: Elect officials who will adopt constitutional amendment
14. Asset forfeiture in rem
1. No right to a jury on asset forfeiture in rem
2. Remedy: Elect officials who will adopt constitutional amendment
15. Fines for code or zoning violation or for creating a nuisance
1. No right to a jury on such cases
2. Remedy: Elect officials who will adopt constitutional amendment
16. Ineligible official assumes office, or exceeds his authority
1. No right to a jury on such cases
2. Remedy: Elect officials who will adopt constitutional amendment or statute to provide for quo warranto, perhaps decided by jury
17. President enters into executive agreement with foreign executive on trade that puts someone out of business
1. Dismissed by judge for lack of standing, failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted
2. Never get to apply for a jury
3. Remedy: Elect different judge-appointing official, or elect officials who will pass reform laws or impeach president
18. President goes to war without congressional declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal
1. Dismissed by judge for lack of standing, failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted
2. Never get to apply for a jury
3. Remedy: Elect different judge-appointing official, or elect officials who will pass reform laws or impeach president
19. Supreme Court or other appeals court makes wrong decision
1. No right to a jury on appeals
   
2. Remedy: Elect officials who will appoint different judges, or adopt constitutional amendment or statute to provide for reform
20. Legislature passes, and executive officials enforce, unconstitutional statutes based only on wrong court precedents
1. No right to a jury on constitutionality of legislation, or than the application of it to criminal cases
2. Remedy: Elect different legislators, or officials who will appoint different judges, or who will adopt constitutional amendment or statute to provide for reform

Basically, the main opportunity for jury intervention is in contract, tort, and criminal cases, but many abuses do not involve such issues.

For almost all of these, the only remedy is elections and constitutional amendments.

What "commerce" meant to the Framers

Much of what the U.S. government does is based on the broad interpretation by judges of the term "commerce" in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, but what did that term mean to the Framers, and how was it understood by people in 1787?

I set out to discover the evidence from historical records of what it meant. I had read most of what the Framers wrote, and much of what they read, and could find few mentions of the word, mostly after the Constitution was drafted and its ratification was being debated. One of the things I did was to search through copies in the archives of the American Antiquarian Society of the newspapers published before 1788, most of which were price reports on trade goods, but among all those editions, I found only four instances of the word "commerce", all used to refer to the trade goods being reported. Evidently the word "commerce" was not commonly used among ordinary people in the American colonies or newly independent states.

When I searched the works most often cited by the Framers as authoritative, I found only one instance of the word "commerce" defined. That was in The Law of Nations, , Book I § 92, by Swiss writer Emmerich de Vattel, originally published in 1758, in French. "Commerce" was a French word. He defined it thus:

... commerce consists in mutually buying and selling all sorts of commodities.

Although the Framers did not cite that particular passage, their frequent cites of other passages supports the position that had they been asked to provide authority for the term as they meant it, it would have been to Vattel.

However, I was not satisfied with that one brief passage. Fortunately, I found in a used bookstore a facsimile edition of the very first edition, from 1771, of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in three volumes. It was published with a magnifier lens to enable the reader to see its very fine print. It is a treasure trove of articles on subjects that reveal better than most writings what many of the terms meant, at least to the Scots authors of the set. It was clearly a product of the Scottish Enlightenment that had a large influence on the Founders of the U.S. One of its articles is on "Commerce", comprising more than 11 pages. I have scanned, OCRed, rendered it into HTML, and posted it on our website here for the convenience of readers. I plan to put up more of it here as time and donations permit.

The opening paragraph of the article reads:

COMMERCE is an operation, by which the wealth, or work, either of individuals, or of societies, may be exchanged, by a set of men called merchants, for an equivalent, proper for supplying every want, without any interruption to industry, or any check upon consumption.

The rest of the article elaborates on this, explaining further the meaning of the term, and from that we can extract what the term included:

1. Transfer of title to and possession of tangible commodities in exchange for a valuable consideration, here called an "equivalent", from a seller to a buyer.
2. There must be at least one merchant between the ultimate producer of the commodity, and the ultimate consumer of it.

What it did not include were:

1. Direct sales from producers to consumers.
2. Services, credit, leasing, and financing (and today, energy).
3. Transport that did not involve a sale.
4. Speech, press, or other communications or information.
5. Extraction of a resource.
6. Manufacturing.
7. Possession before or after the sale.
8. Use and enjoyment.
9. Disposition, including further conveyance not itself for a valuable consideration and through a merchant.

Now this meaning is very different from the meaning the word has for people today, who tend to use the word for economic activity of all kinds. But understanding what it does not include is important when the term is used in a delegation of a power, because by the common law rule of construction, presumed incorporated into the Constitution, "powers" were to be construed as narrowly as the words permit. These rules can be found in the legal maxims:

Potestas stricte interpretatur. A power is strictly interpreted. 

In dubiis, non præsumitur pro potentia. In cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power.

Conversely, since rights (or more precisely, immunities) are the complement of delegated powers, narrow construction of powers means broad construction of immunities. If there is any doubt, the presumption must always be against a power and in favor of a right against the exercise of the power.

The article does much more than just define the boundaries on what is and is not "commerce". It is a kind of mini-textbook on economics as it was understood at the time, with discussion of supply, demand, pricing, and money.

The article uses many terms in ways that allow the etymologist to extract their meaning. An example of this is the word "state", which from context refers to a society with a territory, not to a government. This is also the meaning it had in the U.S. Constitution.