What is the extent of the U. S. President’s Pardoning Power?

October 30th, 2017

The United States’ Constitution invests the President with the power “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” U.S. Const., Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.

The extent of the Power can be addressed in the following five short paragraphs.

    1. Impeachments are specifically excluded from the scope of the power.

    2. The Constitution also limits the President’s pardoning power to offenses against the United States. It precludes the President from pardoning offenses against the states and from intervening in civil suits.

    3. Timing is a factor. Because the power to pardon is given only for “Offenses against the United States,” the crime must precede the pardon. It may not be anticipated.

    4. The pardoning of an offense “may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.” Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333, 380 (1866).

    5. “To the executive alone is entrusted the power, and it is entrusted without limit.” United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128, 147 (1871). Neither the Congress nor the courts can question the motives of the President in the use of the power.

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton justified giving the President exclusive control of the “benign prerogative of pardoning” in terms of two great public purposes:

    1) to temper the law’s unjust results as a matter of justice and
    2) to use “forbearance and clemency” to defuse a politically inflammatory situation.

The Federalist No. 74 (Alexander Hamilton).

The present climate in the United States is just such a politically inflammatory situation that may require the use of the President’s Pardoning Power.

Healthcare is a right, not a privilege.

September 1st, 2017

How did Congress exempt itself from participating in Obamacare? Read the explanation below and become outraged.

August 5th, 2017

The Democratic legislators who created Obamacare knew, from the start, that they did not want to be forced to participate in Obamacare for their own healthcare. So, they came up with an unlawful way to give themselves and their staff a dispensation from participating in Obamacare.

Members of Congress and their staff did not want to loose their ability to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. They did not want to be forced onto exchanges to purchase individual healthcare insurance policies. They had a good thing going and did not want to see it changed.

Federal law, 42 USC section 18032, dictates that Members of Congress and their staff must buy healthcare plans created by Obamacare or from those offered on the exchanges.

So, the only way the Members of Congress and their staff could purchase healthcare insurance was through an exchange as Obamacare created no specific plan for Congress and its staff.

The District of Columbia exchange, as required by Obamacare, had created an “American Health Benefit Exchange” for individuals to purchase healthcare insurance and a “Small Business Health Options Exchange” for small businesses to purchase insurance.

Only businesses with 50 or fewer full-time employees were allowed to purchase insurance through the Small Business Exchange. The small business exchange was the ideal vehicle to allow Members of Congress and their staff to continue to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. But, how was Congress going to be able to satisfy the requirement that it be classified as a “small business” with 50 or fewer employees?

Simple. Commit fraud.

President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] to certify that Congress was a “small business” with 50 or fewer employees. Of course Congress, with over 13,000 employees and a budget in the many millions of dollars, can never be thought of as a “small business” with 50 or fewer employees.

But the District of Columbia small business exchange agreed to participate in this fraud and allowed Congress, as a “small business,” to utilize the exchange so Members of Congress and their staff could continue to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

The Obama administration used fraud to insure that the Members of Congress and their staff did not have to participate in Obamacare. They knew that Obamacare was going to result in lower quality healthcare and higher healthcare costs.

President Trump has indicated that he is considering reversing the OPM’s classification that Congress is a “small business.” He should. The fraud used to create a double standard of how law is to be followed must not be allowed to continue.

Congress should not be allowed to exempt itself from the laws it creates for the people of America. Congress cannot knowingly perpetuate a double standard.

Go to www.whitehouse.gov and send President Trump an email asking him to correct this fraud.

U. S. House of Representatives’ New Medical Malpractice Reform Bill Does Not Change Anything.

July 25th, 2017

The U. S. House of Representatives passed a Medical Malpractice Reform Bill, H.R. 1215, on June 28, 2017. It is called the “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017.”

It is simply a rehash of the same old reform acts that state legislatures have been passing for decades.

The Bill’s title is deceptive. It does not address “Access to Care.”

It will do nothing to reduce the costs of defensive medicine.

In reality, it does nothing new to free physicians and surgeons from the burdens that they are subject to as a result of medical malpractice litigation.

There is no attempt at innovation.

An outline of an appropriate way to reform medical malpractice liability can be found at this link: medical malpractice reform. I have been presenting it to Congress for years. Take a look and see if this makes sense to you.

H.R. 1215 seems to be a way to appease the medical malpractice trial lawyers. In my opinion, it is not meant to appease physicians and surgeons.

It is very important that you contact your U. S. Senators and tell them that you want real reform and not just a Bill that is nothing more than a continuation of the past.

H.R. 1215 does little to nothing for the statute of limitations.

Statute of limitations are to be 1) three years from the date of occurrence of the breach, 2) three years from the date medical treatment is completed, and 3) one year after the injured party discovers the injury which, in the case of a minor, may be extended to the minor’s eight birthday.

The Bill does not preempt state law concerning a state’s statute of limitations.

H.R. 1215 places limits on patient damages. They are:

A cap of $250,000.00 on non-economic damages regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought or the number of claimants in the action.

So, we have a 25 page Bill that does little to nothing to change the way medical malpractice lawsuits will be litigated.

Presently, at least thirty three states have medical malpractice award caps. Defensive medicine has not been reduced by these caps.

Non-economic damages cover physical and emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of domestic service), hedonic damages, injury to reputation, and all other non-pecuniary losses of any kind.

The Bill allows unlimited actual economic damages.

Economic damages covers past and future medical expenses, loss of past and future earnings, cost of obtaining domestic services, loss of employment, and loss of business or employment opportunities.

H.R. Bill 1215 places limits on contingency fees paid to attorneys. This is not new. States currently have limits. H. R. 1215’s limits are:

1) Forty percent for the first $50,000 recovered by claimant.

2) Thirty-three and one-third percent of the next $50,000.00.

3) Twenty-five percent of the next $500,000.00.

4) Fifteen percent of any amount in excess of $600,000.00.

The attorneys are actually treated very well under H. R. 1215.

H.R. 1215’s limits on contingency fees will not have any impact on reducing defensive medicine or reducing the litigation burdens facing physicians and surgeons.

One section of the Bill does limit the liability for prescribers of medications that have been “approved, licensed, or cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.” They cannot be named as a party to a product liability action against the manufacturer, distributer or seller of the product.

The Bill also addresses procedural issues concerning expert witnesses, notice of intent to commence a lawsuit and affidavits of merit. But, these are similar to the limitations presently placed on medical malpractice litigation by most states.

So, we have a 25 page Bill that does little to nothing to change the way medical malpractice lawsuits will be litigated.

The Bill does not lesser the physician’s burden of exposure to malpractice litigation.

Without doing this there will be no reduction in defensive medicine costs.

You cannot have realistic healthcare reform without reducing defensive medicine costs.

At best, H. R. 1215 is a lazy attempt at medical malpractice reform and indicates that the Republican party is out of touch with the realities of healthcare and the needs of the American people, physicians and surgeons.

At worst, it is simply a another con job on the medical community and people of America.

Former FBI Director Comey admits that he leaked documents in order to harm President Trump.

June 10th, 2017


June 8th, 2017

Who is Dr. Bill Cushing?

May 3rd, 2017

What is unmasking? Is it a crime?

April 13th, 2017

What is impeachment? Who can be impeached?

April 10th, 2017

What is Defensive Medicine?

March 12th, 2017