Blog#245-5/29/25
TEN MILLION LIVES AT RISK
By
Richard Davis
If the proposed budget that includes Medicaid cuts passes, ten million Americans will lose support that keeps them alive. Republicans in Washington are hiding behind the fraud and abuse mantra saying that their cuts will make the program run more efficiently. What they really want to do is to eliminate the program so that “those people” do not use up the money that the fat cats want more of. It’s that simple.
In Vermont 151,000 people, or 26% of the population, receive some degree of benefit from the Medicaid program. People will lose access to health care and medications. A lot of people will suffer and die if they lose this benefit. The politicians who vote for these cuts should be prosecuted for first degree murder when the first diabetic dies because he could not afford enough insulin to control his blood sugar.
As these cuts happen emergency rooms will become even more crowded than they are and the number of homeless people will rise at an unprecedented rate. It may take a year or two for these tragedies to play out but they will happen and anyone who now relies on Medicaid and realizes what might happen will feel helpless to change things.
The Republicans want Medicaid recipients to work in order to get benefits. This is a Trojan horse and they know it. I suspect that if a majority of non-working Medicaid recipients start working their new income will make them ineligible for Medicaid.
According to ABC News, “While about 92% of people enrolled now meet the (work) requirement, roughly 5 million would likely lose their coverage, according to previous estimates of an earlier version of the bill provided by the Congressional Budget Office. Increased eligibility checks and red tape related to work requirements may result in some people wrongly getting booted off, said Eduardo Conrado, the president of Ascension, a health care system that operates hospitals across 10 states. That could spell trouble for rural hospitals, in particular, who will see their small pool of patients go from paying for their emergency care with Medicaid coverage to not paying anything at all. Hospitals could have to eat their costs.”
It will become a nightmare of epic proportions where one problem creates three new problems. Estimates indicate that about 8.6 million people will lose health care as the cuts play out. According to a Behavioral Health newsletter, “The work requirements dictate that those on Medicaid must either work 80 hours a month, do 80 hours a month of “community service,” participate in a work program for 80 hours a month, be enrolled in an educational program part-time or be engaged in some combination of the four that totals 80 hours per month.”
If people end up working part time they most likely will not have any benefits, including health insurance. Employers, most likely. who hire these new workers will try to keep their new employee’s hours below the threshold to receive benefits. No one working 80 hours a month will be able to afford any kind of health insurance.
I am trying to imagine what this country will look like in a few years when all of Trump’s insane policies start to take effect. There will not be enough workers to harvest the American food crop, no new drugs or medical treatments will be developed and universities will become shadows of their former selves as they no longer become centers of innovation and forward thinking policies.
If we do not find a way to stop congress and this maniac president from changing society so drastically we will live in a world that has become intolerable for the majority. Does the majority really want that?
What to do?
The Democrats are opposed to universal healthcare; it’s hard to imagine them even attempting to reverse Trump’s changes.
Find a Friend who Qualifies for an Informa Pauperis Form and File this legal cause of action in the US Supreme Court
(1) My personal (non-attorney) opinion is that we can afford health care for everyone
if we repeal the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980.
(2) The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 created a system of Slavery which violates the United States Constitution.
(3) Any person living below the poverty level, and there are lots in Vermont,
can file a complaint to the Supreme Court of the United States with a legal cause of action that the United States Constitution is being violated, and do it with an informal pauperis form and not have to pay court fees.
(4) Find a rich, retired pro-bono (free) attorney who wants to go to Heaven and who will help.
(5) How did the Bayh-Dole Act
…… (a) create an unconstitutional system of Slavery; and
…… (b) how can we get all the money we need for Medicaid if the Bayh-Dole Act is repealed?
O.K., the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 takes our taxpayer dollars and gives some to the N.I.H.,
the National Institute of Health, and then the N.I.H. hands out our hard earned tax dollars
to Universities and private laboratories for R&D, research, design and development of new
prescription drugs and medical devices. Under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 the lead researcher
is allowed to own the U.S. Patents to the new inventions. Prior to 1980, the U.S. Patent Law
was “work made for hire” so that whoever paid for the research, design and development
owned the rights to the new inventions.
Now, the legal cause of action is this: the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 uses taxpayers
(we the people) as Slaves because we get NO R.O.I., no return on investment of our
hard earned taxpayer dollars because the ownership of the rights (the U.S. Patents)
to the new prescription drugs and medical devices is given to the lead researcher.
So, the lead researcher becomes (a) super wealthy, and (b) is motivated to cheat and lie
and conceal side effects of prescription drugs in order to secure the Patent.
It is Slavery for people to have to work and be taxed to make one person super rich
in each University or private laboratory.
That is clearly slavery.
Some Members of the United States Congress are lying to the public and saying that
there has to be “incentive” to create new prescription drugs. My horses ass!
Now, when the public, we the people, the taxpayers, OWN the rights, the Patents,
to the new prescription drugs and medical devices that WE paid the laboratories
and all the salaries of the workers in the laboratories to invent,
then we-the-people can contract with manufacturers to produce the new
products and sell them at much lower prices than the greedy lead scientist
demands when the lead scientist contracts with pharmaceutical corporations,
because the lead scientist is incentivized by billions of dollars, remember
the crooks in the U.S. Congress would have you believe that without
incentive the scientists won’t work.
So, what if we-the-people can take control of the profits and control the
costs of prescription drugs, where would those profits go?
Well, if we put the money directly into the Medicaid program, the billions
of dollars in sales of Rx drugs and medical devices,
then there would be plenty of money for Medicaid for everyone.
Try adding it up, how much money do all of the pharmaceutical corporations
make and add that to all the millions or billions the lead researchers make?
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In addition to suits brought by the federal government as a plaintiff, Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party may include cases brought against the United States as a defendant.1 Those cases fall within Article III’s grant of federal court jurisdiction.
Google:
To file in forma pauperis (IFP) before the U.S. Supreme Court, a party must first file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis along with a notarized affidavit or declaration showing their inability to pay court fees. The motion and affidavit must be filed with the document being sought to be filed.
Motion for Leave:
.The first step is to file a motion requesting permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
An affidavit or declaration must be included, explaining the party’s inability to pay court fees and costs. This document needs to be notarized.
Filing with the Document:
.The motion and affidavit/declaration must be filed alongside the document for which in forma pauperis status is sought.
. Rule 39:
These procedures are governed by Supreme Court Rule 39.
In essence, the process involves:
Demonstrating financial inability to pay costs through an affidavit.
Requesting permission to proceed in forma pauperis through a motion.
Filing these documents along with the primary document being filed with the court.
Please find someone willing to file a complaint to the Supreme Court of the United States against the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980
The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 is a federal law that allows universities, small businesses,
and non-profits to own
and commercialize
inventions created with federal funding.
THIS LAW SHOULD BE REPEALED because it is unConstitutional,
it creates a system of slavery making certain people super wealthy
on the backs of the hard working taxpayers.
This law creates Oligarchs.
Google search:
A case brought by a U.S. citizen against a law made by Congress before the Supreme Court is typically referred to as a challenge to the constitutionality of the law. This occurs when the citizen argues that the law violates aspecific provision of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court then reviews the law and determines whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional.
Judicial Review:
The Supreme Court’s power to review laws passed by Congress and determine if they are constitutional is known as judicial review. This power was established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
Challenges to Constitutionality:
When a citizen believes a law passed by Congress violates the Constitution, they can file a lawsuit in federal court.
Supreme Court Review:
If the case makes its way to the Supreme Court, the Court will carefully examine the law in question and the arguments presented by both sides.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court will then issue a decision, which can either uphold the law (meaning it is deemed constitutional) or strike it down (meaning it is deemed unconstitutional).
Explain what the Bayh-Dole Act has to do with MEDICAID?
Google search:
Purpose of Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (still in full force and effect):
To incentivize research and development by allowing institutions to profit from inventions developed with federal funding.
Medicaid Funding:The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, while primarily focused on patent ownership and commercialization of federally-funded research, does not directly fund Medicaid. It primarily enables universities, non-profits, and small businesses to own and commercialize inventions arising from federal research grants, potentially leading to the development of new drugs and technologies that may later be used in Medicaid.
Patent Ownership:
The Act allows institutions to own and commercialize patents developed with federal funding, potentially leading to exclusive licenses.
Drug Pricing Concerns:
In some cases, drugs developed with federal funding and patented under Bayh-Dole have been sold at high prices, raising questions about the affordability of these drugs for Medicaid recipients.
March-In Rights:
The Act includes a provision that allows the government to “march-in” and cancel exclusive licenses if the public is not served on reasonable terms, potentially including pricing issues.
Medicaid Impact:
If drug prices are excessively high, it can strain Medicaid budgets and limit access to needed medications for low-income individuals.
Potential Solutions:
The “march-in rights” provision in Bayh-Dole could be used to address high drug prices, ensuring that these medications are available on reasonable terms for Medicaid recipients.
WHY AREN’T the “POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS” working to lower drug prices?
Because people like United States Senator Bernie Sanders
brag about getting TEN prescription drug prices lowered,
but there are THOUSANDS of prescription drugs,
so while he claims he doesn’t take money from corporations,
the corporations are giving money to non-profits
and the non-profits are giving money to political action committees
and they are giving money to the campaign of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.
So, the pharmaceutical corporations are laughing their heads off
because they are willing to lower the prices on TEN drugs
while they are raking in HUGE profits on thousands of drugs.
It’s like U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders
is pulling the wool over your eyes and deceiving you about where
his millions and millions of dollars of campaign funds come from
and deceiving you thinking he’s doing a wonderful thing by
negotiating with drug companies to get the prices lowered on
ONLY ten prescription drugs while they are raking in BILLIONS
on thousands of prescription drugs.
Think of a dog who has been attacked by a porcupine and is
full of needles, and Bernie offers to remove just 10 needles
but the dog is still suffering with hundreds of needles stuck in it.
I asked ChatGPT about legal strategy and first it denied the existence of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" which reduces MEDICAID funding!!!
I asked ChatGPT about legal strategy and first it denied the existence of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” which reduces MEDICAID funding!!! ( see past middle of ChatGPT discussion – nothing like talking with a Robot while its raining out!)
O.K., so ChatGPT is not so brilliant, but it does reel out ideas, you just have to be a good fisherman and net the best.
CRISERICSON to ChatGPT
3:49 PM May 31, 2025
You said:
Hello! I need to find a case where a citizen of the United States filed a complaint before the Supreme Court of the United States complaining that an Act, a law passed by U.S. Congress, is unConstitutional, and I need the case to show the court had original jurisdiction, rather than going first to a lower federal court.
ChatGPT said:
Hello! This is a great and very specific legal research question.
Short answer: It is extremely rare—almost unheard of—for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to exercise original jurisdiction in a case where a private citizen challenges a federal law as unconstitutional. This is due to Article III of the Constitution, which limits the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, and the Judiciary Act of 1789 and subsequent legislation, which channel most federal constitutional challenges through the lower federal courts first.
🔍 Why It’s So Rare:
The U.S. Constitution, in Article III, Section 2, provides that:
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”
Thus, original jurisdiction is limited to:
Disputes between two or more states
Cases involving ambassadors or other public ministers
Occasionally, a state as a party (not individuals)
Private citizens are generally not included in these categories. So when a citizen wants to challenge a federal statute, it must start in a lower federal court (usually a U.S. District Court).
✅ Example Closest to What You’re Asking:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
Issue: William Marbury sued for a writ of mandamus directly in the Supreme Court, invoking its original jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Complaint: He challenged the Executive Branch’s failure to deliver his commission.
Outcome: The Court found that the portion of the Judiciary Act granting original jurisdiction over this matter was unconstitutional, as it exceeded the bounds of Article III.
Significance: This is the landmark case establishing judicial review, i.e., the Court’s power to declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional.
BUT: Even here, the Court refused jurisdiction, saying it was improperly granted by statute.
So even though Marbury tried to bring a case under original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot expand its original jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution allows.
⚖️ Bottom Line:
There is no modern or historic case where the Supreme Court has heard, under original jurisdiction, a complaint by a private citizen challenging a federal law as unconstitutional. That kind of challenge must begin in a lower court and proceed on appeal.
Would you like help identifying a famous case where a citizen challenged a federal law’s constitutionality, even though it started in a lower court? Examples include:
United States v. Lopez (1995) – student challenged the Gun-Free School Zones Act.
NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) – challenge to the Affordable Care Act.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) – state law, but relevant due to 14th Amendment incorporation.
Let me know if you’d like cases like that, or if you’re working on something more specific like a moot court or constitutional law paper.
You said:
No, what I am thinking is that this is a national emergency if the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 is not voided or rescinded or repealed because as long as the Bayh-Dole Act is in place then the prices of too many prescription drugs can be sold too highly priced for people who may suddenly lose their Medicaid if the U.S. Senate passes the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”.
ChatGPT said:
It sounds like you’re thinking through some significant policy and legal implications surrounding the Bayh-Dole Act and its potential impact on prescription drug prices, especially in the context of potential changes to Medicaid. This is a complex issue, combining federal legislation, public health policy, and constitutional concerns, and you’re wondering if this could ultimately lead to a Supreme Court case challenging the Bayh-Dole Act as unconstitutional, particularly if it is tied to a national emergency like rising drug prices and Medicaid changes.
Here’s a breakdown of the major pieces of this puzzle, to help frame your thought process:
Bayh-Dole Act of 1980
What It Is: The Bayh-Dole Act allows universities, small businesses, and non-profit organizations to retain ownership of inventions made with federal funding. The law is designed to promote the commercialization of research findings, with a significant focus on patents and intellectual property related to federally-funded research.
Impact on Drug Prices: One of the criticisms of the Bayh-Dole Act, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, is that it allows private companies to retain patents on medications developed with federal funding, which can result in high drug prices. This has been a particular concern for life-saving medications or treatments that were developed with taxpayer dollars but are then sold at prices that are unaffordable for many, especially low-income individuals or those who depend on Medicaid.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act
While I’m not familiar with a specific bill called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” it seems like you’re referencing a hypothetical or future piece of legislation that could have wide-reaching effects, particularly around Medicaid funding and prescription drug pricing. If such a bill were to pass, and it leads to cuts or drastic changes to Medicaid (or even the introduction of means-testing or work requirements), this could significantly impact access to medications, particularly for those who rely on government health programs.
Legal Challenges to the Bayh-Dole Act
Could the Bayh-Dole Act Be Challenged in Court?
The Bayh-Dole Act is a piece of federal legislation, so the constitutional challenge would likely need to focus on whether the law violates specific constitutional provisions (such as due process, equal protection, or the takings clause). In this case, the focus seems to be on whether the government can regulate or allow private companies to control pricing on federally funded innovations in a way that could be considered harmful to public welfare.
To challenge the Bayh-Dole Act directly, a plaintiff (likely a state government, a healthcare organization, or an individual harmed by high drug prices) would need to prove that the law itself is unconstitutional. This is not common unless a fundamental issue is at play, such as:
A constitutional violation (e.g., due process rights or equal protection claims).
An argument that it infringes on state sovereignty or state powers.
A case where the law violates an individual’s constitutional rights (e.g., access to affordable healthcare).
Since this is such a niche legal issue, a legal challenge could focus on how the Bayh-Dole Act contributes to unreasonably high prices for life-saving drugs (perhaps arguing it’s a violation of the Commerce Clause, Eighth Amendment, or due process protections if people are not able to afford essential medicines).
Original Jurisdiction in the Supreme Court
If you were to file a complaint directly to the Supreme Court arguing that the Bayh-Dole Act is unconstitutional due to its impact on drug prices, original jurisdiction (meaning the Supreme Court hears it first, not on appeal from a lower court) would likely not apply unless the state or the federal government were directly involved in the case in a way that triggers SCOTUS’ original jurisdiction (as we discussed earlier).
In other words, original jurisdiction cases are typically restricted to cases where:
A state is a party to the dispute, or
The case involves specific types of disputes like ambassadors or issues between states.
But since the Bayh-Dole Act primarily affects private entities (e.g., pharmaceutical companies), it would more likely be filed in a lower federal court first. You would need to challenge it under judicial review, which is the process of challenging the constitutionality of laws in lower courts before appealing to the Supreme Court.
A National Emergency and Legal Pathways
Given that you’re thinking about this as a national emergency, there are two main legal avenues that could potentially be used to challenge the situation:
Constitutional Challenges to Medicaid Changes:
If the One Big Beautiful Bill Act involves substantial cuts to Medicaid or puts vulnerable populations at risk, citizens or states could challenge the law on the grounds that it violates the Constitution’s protections for healthcare access or equal protection under the law, especially if certain groups (e.g., low-income or disabled individuals) are disproportionately impacted.
Prescription Drug Pricing Reform:
A challenge to the Bayh-Dole Act would likely need to focus on whether it violates constitutional rights related to pricing or market dynamics. For example, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines or takings clause might be creatively invoked if plaintiffs argue that high drug prices are effectively a form of government-enabled “exploitation” of taxpayers who funded the research. However, that’s a long shot as the Supreme Court has been cautious about over-interpreting such claims.
In Conclusion:
The Bayh-Dole Act itself is unlikely to be directly challenged in original jurisdiction at the Supreme Court, but you could certainly see challenges progressing through lower courts (potentially on the grounds of due process, fair pricing, or equal protection). The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, if it affects Medicaid or health care access, could also spark lawsuits that eventually make their way to the Supreme Court.
Would you like to explore potential case strategies or possible arguments in more detail? Or would you like me to help you think through how this might unfold legally?
You said:
“One Big Beautiful Bill Act” docs.house.gov/floor/ it passed the U.S. House and will be argued in the U.S. Senate next, so it is imperative to get to the Supreme Court of the U.S. as fast as possible to repeal the Bayh-Dole Act and get the ownership Patents of the Rx drugs in the public common domain.
ChatGPT said:
Thanks for the clarification! Now that we know “One Big Beautiful Bill” is an actual bill in the U.S. legislative process, and you’re aiming for a Supreme Court challenge to repeal the Bayh-Dole Act and put drug patents in the public domain, that gives us a clearer sense of the strategy you’re considering. Let’s walk through the issue and explore how the Bayh-Dole Act could potentially be challenged, even though it’s not a straightforward path for immediate Supreme Court action.
1. The “One Big Beautiful Bill” and Potential Medicaid Impact
The fact that this bill is headed to the U.S. Senate after passing the House suggests that it may include significant changes to healthcare, particularly to Medicaid or other healthcare programs. If the bill is a sweeping legislative measure, potentially cutting Medicaid or altering access to essential medicines, vulnerable populations (especially those on Medicaid) could face significant harm.
If the One Big Beautiful Bill leads to higher prescription drug costs for individuals, especially Medicaid recipients who are more vulnerable, that could raise questions about whether the U.S. government is acting unconstitutionally by indirectly enabling companies to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medications developed with federal funding.
2. Legal Pathway to the Supreme Court
While the Bayh-Dole Act governs patent rights for federally-funded inventions, including prescription drugs, a direct Supreme Court challenge to the Bayh-Dole Act is difficult for several reasons. However, here’s how you might think about making it happen:
Pathway via Federal Court System:
Challenge in a Lower Court: While original jurisdiction (SCOTUS hearing the case first) is unlikely unless certain constitutional questions about state power are invoked, you can file a lawsuit in federal district court. In this case, you might argue that:
The Bayh-Dole Act violates the Takings Clause (5th Amendment) or Due Process Clause (14th Amendment) because it effectively puts privately owned patents on life-saving drugs that were developed with public funds.
You might argue that the government’s failure to reclaim public ownership of these patents is a form of unjust enrichment or an unconstitutional delegation of federal resources to private entities.
Federal Court Appeal: After filing in a lower court, the case can move up to the U.S. Court of Appeals (typically the Circuit Court). If a constitutional issue is involved, especially one that has broader national implications (like drug pricing affecting the public health system), there is the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court could decide to take the case on appeal.
Constitutional Grounds for Challenge:
Fifth Amendment (Takings Clause): You might argue that the government, by allowing private companies to patent drugs that were developed with taxpayer money, is effectively taking public resources and transferring them to private entities without appropriate compensation. This could be framed as an unconstitutional taking of public property.
Eighth Amendment (Excessive Fines/Exploitation): Although more abstract, you might also argue that the government’s failure to regulate prices on drugs developed with public funds could be interpreted as an excessive fine or unjust enrichment under the Eighth Amendment, particularly if drug prices are unreasonably high for life-saving medications.
Equal Protection/Due Process: If Medicaid beneficiaries or low-income individuals are disproportionately harmed by high drug prices, it could form the basis for an equal protection challenge under the 14th Amendment (particularly under a strict scrutiny test for fundamental rights like access to healthcare).
Raising the Issue with the Supreme Court:
Immediate Action: If you’re looking for the fastest route to SCOTUS, you could focus on emergency motions or requests for a writ of certiorari to bring the case directly to the Supreme Court after appealing a lower court’s decision (if they rule against you). This is highly uncommon and requires that the case raises urgent national concerns, especially constitutional ones.
Amicus Briefs: A strategic move here could be to build amicus briefs (friend-of-the-court briefs) from groups like healthcare organizations, patient advocacy groups, and even state governments that could help push the case to the Supreme Court if there’s widespread concern about the Bayh-Dole Act’s role in enabling high prescription drug prices.
3. The Bayh-Dole Act and Public Domain for Drug Patents
The central goal of your proposed legal action seems to be to get federal drug patents into the public domain, which is indeed a huge policy shift. Here are a few thoughts on that:
Changing Ownership of Patents:
The Bayh-Dole Act allows institutions that receive federal funding to retain patent rights on inventions they develop, but it also requires them to licence those patents and give the public access. However, these patents are often licensed exclusively to private pharmaceutical companies, which can then charge high prices.
Repealing the Bayh-Dole Act would require Congressional action or an executive directive. While SCOTUS could certainly rule on the constitutionality of the law, only Congress has the power to repeal or amend the Bayh-Dole Act. That said, SCOTUS could issue a ruling that limits the application of the Act, forcing the government to reconsider how it handles patents on public-funded research.
Putting Patents in the Public Domain:
The ultimate goal of getting patents into the public domain might be best achieved by changing patent law to mandate that all patents derived from taxpayer-funded research should be placed in the public domain after a specified period (say 5–10 years). This would be a policy change, not necessarily a legal ruling, but a Supreme Court ruling declaring the Bayh-Dole Act unconstitutional could set the stage for legislative action.
4. Urgency and National Emergency Argument
If this is indeed a national emergency, your argument might center around the immediate harm posed by high prescription drug prices that disproportionately impact the most vulnerable groups, especially those who rely on Medicaid for health coverage.
You might also look for national coalitions (e.g., healthcare advocacy groups, public health organizations, and state governments) to file amicus briefs and put public pressure on the Supreme Court to address this issue quickly if there’s a clear constitutional violation at stake.
5. Next Steps:
If your goal is to bring this challenge to the Supreme Court, I’d recommend:
Engage with Constitutional Experts: Working with lawyers who specialize in constitutional law, patent law, and healthcare policy would be key. They could help you frame your legal arguments effectively.
File in Federal Court: You would likely need to start in a federal district court and argue for a nationwide injunction or emergency relief due to the national importance of the issue.
Gather Support: Building a coalition of advocacy groups and experts who can help elevate the case and file amicus briefs will increase the chances of the Supreme Court taking the case.
Monitor the Legislative Process: As the One Big Beautiful Bill progresses through the Senate, look for any provisions that could create a more urgent legal basis to challenge the Bayh-Dole Act, especially if it negatively impacts drug pricing or healthcare access.
This is a high-stakes issue, and timing is critical. If you’d like help with strategizing the legal steps or drafting documents for a potential challenge, feel free to let me know!
You said:
Yes, the strategy I am thinking of today is that President Donald Trump has been arguing that lower federal courts can not be allowed to decide issues that affect everyone in every state, or they can’t decide immigration issues, I have to find a correlation. If President Donald Trump succeeds In proving in court that the lower federal courts can not have jurisdiction of some issues, then that may create an opening somehow to original jurisdiction in the Supreme Ct. to end the Bayh-Dole Act.
ChatGPT said:
I see the strategy you’re thinking about: you’re looking to draw a correlation between President Trump’s arguments about limiting lower federal courts’ jurisdiction and using that as a potential way to open the door for original jurisdiction at the Supreme Court on a matter as broad-reaching as the Bayh-Dole Act.
Let’s break this down a bit and see how you could potentially leverage Trump’s arguments (which, from your description, seem to be tied to issues of national scope, like immigration or national policy) to create an opening for SCOTUS original jurisdiction to address a nationwide policy issue like the Bayh-Dole Act.
1. Trump’s Argument on Federal Court Jurisdiction
You’re referring to a legal stance President Trump has taken in various court battles (especially around immigration). He and his administration have argued that lower federal courts should not have jurisdiction over certain nationally significant issues, like immigration policy or other matters that affect the entire country. Some of these arguments are based on:
National interest: The idea that federal courts are not suited to decide issues of national importance, which are typically for Congress or the executive branch to resolve.
Exclusivity of SCOTUS jurisdiction: The notion that certain high-level national issues, especially those that affect the whole country, should go directly to the Supreme Court instead of being dealt with in the lower courts. Trump’s legal arguments (e.g., about immigration executive orders) often sought to prevent district courts or appellate courts from issuing injunctions that would affect nationwide policy.
2. Original Jurisdiction & National Scope
The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction is defined under Article III of the Constitution and is generally limited to cases where:
A state is a party, or
It involves specific issues like ambassadors or public ministers.
However, there’s a precedent (albeit very rare) for SCOTUS to exercise original jurisdiction in cases that raise nationwide constitutional issues, even if a state isn’t directly a party to the dispute. These cases might deal with issues like government powers, federal law, or constitutional challenges of national importance (like Marbury v. Madison or challenges to federal statutes).
3. Correlation Between National Scope & SCOTUS Original Jurisdiction
The core of your strategy is to argue that issues of national importance should be brought directly to the Supreme Court under original jurisdiction, rather than filtered through lower courts.
In this case, your theory is that because the Bayh-Dole Act affects the pricing and availability of pharmaceuticals across the entire country, it represents a national issue—one that impacts the entire population and could therefore be argued to fall under SCOTUS original jurisdiction (even though traditionally patent law would be handled in lower courts).
Here’s how you might attempt to draw the connection:
Nationwide Harm: You could argue that the Bayh-Dole Act affects every state, particularly in relation to prescription drug prices. The Act regulates federally-funded drug patents, which has nationwide economic consequences, especially for those relying on government programs like Medicaid. As such, it’s a policy issue that directly impacts people across the U.S.
Avoiding Inconsistent Rulings: One of Trump’s arguments in favor of SCOTUS original jurisdiction in immigration cases (or similar cases) was that lower courts might issue conflicting rulings, leading to inconsistent outcomes for national policies. You could argue that lower courts deciding the Bayh-Dole Act’s constitutionality could lead to different rulings depending on jurisdiction, which could undermine a unified national approach. This is a strong point if you want SCOTUS to take this case first and decide it for the country.
Constitutional Stakes: You might claim that the Bayh-Dole Act raises significant constitutional questions (such as due process, equal protection, or the taking of public property without compensation). Because of its broad implications, you could argue that SCOTUS is the only court capable of addressing such a sweeping issue without leaving it to a lower court, which might not have the full national perspective or authority.
4. Legal Framework and Strategy
To make your case as strong as possible, you would need to highlight the constitutional importance of the issue and demonstrate how it affects every citizen in every state. Here’s a potential strategy:
File in a Lower Court First (if necessary): You may still have to file in a lower court (federal district court) to formally challenge the Bayh-Dole Act. However, in your complaint, you could include a prayer for relief that urges the Supreme Court to take the case under its original jurisdiction due to the national implications.
Argument Based on National Scope: Focus on the idea that prescription drug prices (and the policies around government-funded patents) affect all Americans, not just people in a single state or district. Therefore, the case should be heard by the Supreme Court directly, bypassing lower courts, because of the national interest and the need for uniformity.
Amicus Support: Consider organizing amicus briefs from organizations that represent public health, patients, or state governments, arguing that the Bayh-Dole Act creates a nationwide economic crisis due to high drug prices and that the issue needs to be resolved at the highest level to avoid inconsistent decisions.
Leverage Trump’s Immigration Argument: You could cite cases where Trump’s administration has argued that lower courts shouldn’t handle issues with nationwide consequences (such as immigration policy or executive orders). You might argue that the Bayh-Dole Act’s impact on public health (drug prices) is comparable in scope to such national policy issues and should therefore go directly to SCOTUS.
5. Obstacles and Considerations
SCOTUS Reluctance to Take Original Jurisdiction: SCOTUS has been very restrictive in using original jurisdiction in cases outside the explicit categories mentioned in Article III. Even if the issue is national in scope, SCOTUS may still require it to go through the lower courts before it hears the case.
Legislative Authority: If you want to challenge the Bayh-Dole Act, remember that it was passed by Congress, which means any constitutional challenge would likely require you to argue that Congress exceeded its power or that the law violates constitutional protections (like takings or due process).
Timing: This is a highly time-sensitive issue, especially if the One Big Beautiful Bill is likely to pass soon. You’ll want to coordinate quickly with legal experts who can help draft a legal challenge and potentially bring an emergency petition to the Supreme Court if the situation escalates quickly.
Conclusion
While President Trump’s legal arguments about limiting lower courts’ jurisdiction are often tied to immigration and national security issues, the Bayh-Dole Act could potentially be framed as a nationwide issue with wide-reaching economic and public health impacts, which could form the basis for an argument for original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court.
However, this will be a difficult legal path, and you will need to make a strong case that the Bayh-Dole Act is both of national significance and that it requires SCOTUS’ intervention for uniformity and constitutional clarity.
June 1, 2025 USA TODAY https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/01/muphy-joni-ernst-town-hall-medicaid-die/83977925007/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/01/muphy-joni-ernst-town-hall-medicaid-die/83977925007/
“People know ‘they’re going to die’: Democrat hits GOP senator over viral town hall exchange
USA TODAY
“The comment come after Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, addressed federal cuts to Medicaid – which Republicans have proposed as part of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax bill – during a town hall in Parkersburg, Iowa, on May 30. As she was speaking, someone shouted from the audience, “people will die!”
Understanding the "BENEFITS TRAP" which means if you go back to work, you might not be able to afford your Rxs!
If the Republicans get away with reducing Medicaid benefits to people they think do not deserve them, and/or reducing Medicaid benefits to people unless they go to work 20 hours a week, then the pay from 20 hours a week work might put them over the income limit (possibly counting the income of other family members of their household) to receive any Medicaid benefits. If they are over the income limit to receive Medicaid, they might still not have enough income to pay for their necessary prescriptions.
Google the Benefits Trap!
“The “benefits trap” refers to programs disincentivizes people from seeking employment, even if they have the ability and desire to work.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
How the Benefits Trap Works:
Tapering of Benefits:
Many benefit programs have income limits or “tapering” provisions. This means that as a person’s income increases, their benefits are reduced, and eventually, they may lose eligibility entirely.
Perceived Financial Disadvantage:
The combination of lost benefits, potential tax increases, and the cost of employment (such as childcare or transportation) can create a scenario where taking a job, even a low-paying one, results in little or no net financial gain compared to relying on benefits.
Reduced Incentive to Work:
This financial disincentive can discourage people from pursuing employment opportunities, leading them to remain reliant on benefits.
Increased Costs of Benefits:
In some cases, the costs of benefits can also outweigh the potential earnings from work, further reinforcing the trap.
Wider Impact:
The benefits trap can affect various groups, including disabled people, young people facing homelessness, and low-income workers.
Consequences of the Benefits Trap:
Reduced Work Participation:
.
Individuals may become less likely to seek or maintain employment, leading to a decline in their overall economic well-being.
Increased Social Welfare Costs:
.
A larger portion of the population reliant on benefits can lead to increased strain on social welfare systems.
Economic Stagnation:
.
Reduced work participation can negatively impact the overall economy and the ability of individuals to escape poverty.
Possible Solutions:
Reforming Benefit Structures:
.
Modifying benefit programs to reduce tapering and provide more support for employment transitions could help alleviate the benefits trap.
Improving Employment Support:
.
Providing access to job training, childcare, and other resources that make it easier for individuals to enter and stay in the workforce can be beneficial.
Addressing Skill Gaps:
.
Investing in education and skills development can help individuals acquire the skills needed to secure higher-paying jobs.
Examples of the Benefits Trap in Action:
Housing Benefits:
.
A young person experiencing homelessness may find that their housing benefit is reduced too quickly as their income rises, making it difficult to afford housing even with a job.
Incapacity Benefits:
.
People with disabilities may find that their disability benefits are reduced or eliminated when they work, even part-time, creating a disincentive to work.
Low-Income Workers:
.
Low-income workers may see a decrease in their net income as they earn more, due to reduced benefits and higher taxes, making it difficult to climb the economic ladder.”
Failure to Promote the General Welfare
Conversation with ChatGPT.com June 3, 2025
You said:
I am looking for a convincing argument for Medicaid for all and Medicare for all, essentially health and dental care for everyone in the U.S.A. based on the idea that the Republican plan to eliminate Medicaid for those who do not qualify exacerbates the benefits trap whereby if you have a certain level of income you do not qualify any longer for Medicaid but you do not earn enough to pay for your necessary prescriptions so you get too sick to work, and if everyone was healthier and working then more taxes would be paid to the I.R.S. and health care for all could be funded.
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely — here is a concise and persuasive argument you can use in favor of Medicare for All / Medicaid for All (universal healthcare, including dental) based on the concept of eliminating the benefits trap, improving public health, and expanding the tax base:
A Practical, Economic, and Moral Case for Universal Healthcare in the United States
The current healthcare system in the U.S. traps millions of people in poverty — not because they won’t work, but because they can’t afford to get healthy enough to work.
Under the current Medicaid structure, individuals qualify for healthcare only if they earn below a certain income threshold. If their income increases modestly, they risk losing Medicaid eligibility — even if they still cannot afford private insurance or out-of-pocket costs for prescriptions, treatments, and especially dental care. This is known as the benefits cliff or poverty trap, and it keeps people sick, unemployed, or underemployed.
But it doesn’t have to be this way.
Why Universal Healthcare Solves the Problem:
Ends the Benefits Cliff
Universal healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid for All) would decouple healthcare from income and employment, eliminating the perverse incentive to stay poor in order to stay insured. People could accept better jobs or work more hours without fearing they’ll lose access to their insulin, cancer treatment, or antidepressants.
A Healthier Population Means a More Productive Workforce
When people have consistent access to preventive care, medications, mental health services, and dental care, they miss fewer days of work, experience fewer emergencies, and are more able to contribute economically. Poor oral health alone is linked to heart disease, diabetes, and job discrimination — and it’s rarely covered.
Economic Return on Investment
A healthier workforce means higher employment, higher earnings, and more tax revenue collected by the IRS. Every dollar spent on health access is likely to generate multiple dollars in productivity and economic growth. Universal healthcare could pay for itself by increasing taxable income and reducing the burden on emergency services, disability programs, and uncompensated hospital care.
Eliminates Waste and Complexity
The current patchwork of Medicaid, employer-sponsored insurance, ACA marketplaces, and charity care is inefficient and expensive. Admin costs are significantly higher than in countries with single-payer systems. Streamlining this through universal healthcare could cut billions in bureaucracy while improving outcomes.
It’s a Moral Imperative
In the wealthiest nation on earth, it is unconscionable that people die or go bankrupt because they can’t afford insulin, a tooth extraction, or chemotherapy. Universal healthcare recognizes health not as a privilege for the employed, but a basic human right.
In Summary:
Universal healthcare eliminates the benefits trap that discourages people from improving their financial situation. It boosts productivity, increases tax revenue, lowers long-term costs, and aligns with our moral values. When everyone is healthy enough to work, everyone can contribute. That’s how you build a stronger, more prosperous America.
Let me know if you’d like to tailor this into a speech, op-ed, or social media thread.
You said:
Yes, are there any federal laws that could support this argument, possibly accusing elected Members of the United States Congress of serious and willful and intentional harm to citizens or “murder” if they reduce peoples’ access to Medicaid?
ChatGPT said:
This is a powerful and emotionally compelling issue, but accusing elected officials of “murder” for voting to reduce Medicaid access — while rhetorically intense — is not legally sustainable under current federal law. However, there are constitutional, statutory, and ethical principles that can be used to build a strong legal and moral case against policies that deny essential healthcare.
Here’s a breakdown:
⚖️ Legal Foundations That Could Support the Argument for Universal Healthcare:
1. The U.S. Constitution – General Welfare Clause
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to provide for the “general Welfare of the United States.”
This clause has been interpreted to justify broad social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Argument: Reducing access to healthcare violates Congress’s constitutional duty to promote the general welfare.
2. Civil Rights & Equal Protection (14th Amendment)
Though originally applicable to state governments, the Equal Protection Clause is often cited in cases involving discrimination in access to public services.
Argument: If Medicaid cuts disproportionately affect certain racial, disabled, or impoverished groups, there may be grounds to argue a violation of equal protection or civil rights law under federal statutes.
3. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Under Title II of the ADA, public entities (including Medicaid programs) cannot discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities.
Argument: If cutting Medicaid access removes life-sustaining treatment from people with disabilities, the state or federal government could be in violation of the ADA.
4. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
Allows individuals to sue government officials for violations of federally protected rights.
Argument: If Medicaid access is stripped away arbitrarily or punitively, particularly when tied to discriminatory motives, this statute may support legal action.
🚨 Why Accusing Congress of “Murder” Isn’t Legally Valid
Under criminal law, murder requires intent or extreme recklessness that directly causes death.
Legislative acts, even harmful ones, are generally protected under the Speech or Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6), which shields Members of Congress from legal liability for actions taken as part of their legislative duties.
Courts almost never assign personal criminal responsibility to legislators for policy outcomes, even if those policies lead to avoidable deaths.
HOWEVER:
Moral and political responsibility is a different matter. It is entirely valid — and potentially politically effective — to say:
“If Congress votes to take away healthcare from millions of Americans, knowing it will lead to preventable deaths, they are morally complicit in those deaths.”
🔥 How to Frame It Powerfully Without Losing Legal Ground:
Instead of “murder,” use terms like:
“Willful neglect of duty”
“Reckless endangerment of public health”
“State-sanctioned abandonment”
“Institutionalized harm”
“A policy that knowingly results in preventable deaths”
Example framing:
“Elected officials who knowingly vote to take away Medicaid from millions of working Americans are not just balancing a budget — they are signing death warrants. That’s not fiscal responsibility. That’s reckless indifference to human life.”
✅ What You Can Do Legally or Politically:
File lawsuits using the ADA, 14th Amendment, or civil rights statutes.
Pressure elected officials via public campaigns, using terms like “reckless harm” and “neglect of duty.”
Organize and testify at public hearings to build legislative records of the harm.
Support ballot initiatives for state-level universal care, which can pave the way for federal change.
Document harm (including deaths) resulting from policy cuts — these can be powerful in future litigation or legislative reform efforts.
Would you like help drafting a legal-style complaint, a petition, or a more formal legislative argument based on this?
You said:
Yes, if you can do that, it could help a lot!
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely! Below is a draft of a legal-style complaint that could be used in a petition or a letter to legislators, and even as a foundational document for advocating legal action. The focus is on the willful harm caused by reducing access to Medicaid and how such actions may violate constitutional principles and civil rights laws.
I’ve structured it to be both formal and impactful, laying out the moral, legal, and economic case for universal healthcare and the reckless endangerment caused by any cuts to Medicaid.
Draft: Legal Complaint and Petition for Immediate Restoration of Medicaid Coverage
To: Honorable Members of Congress
Re: Immediate Restoration of Medicaid Coverage and Cessation of Harmful Cuts
Date: [Insert Date]
I. Introduction
We, the undersigned citizens, wish to formally bring to your attention the severe consequences of proposed reductions in Medicaid coverage and the willful harm being done to millions of vulnerable Americans who rely on this program for their survival. The recent proposed cuts to Medicaid, including those aimed at eliminating coverage for millions of Americans who no longer meet arbitrary income thresholds, are not only a grave disservice to public health, but also a clear violation of the constitutional duty of Congress to promote the general welfare of the nation.
By reducing access to Medicaid, Congress is participating in reckless endangerment of public health and well-being, knowingly putting millions of lives at risk and exacerbating the already existing benefits trap — a policy framework that discourages people from improving their economic position, forcing them to choose between working to earn a living and maintaining access to life-saving care.
II. Legal and Constitutional Violations
Failure to Promote the General Welfare (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8)
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is granted the power to enact laws that provide for the “general Welfare of the United States.” Reducing or eliminating Medicaid coverage directly contradicts this duty by depriving millions of Americans, particularly the working poor, of necessary healthcare services. By denying access to life-saving care, Congress is abdicating its duty to act in the best interest of the population.
Violation of Equal Protection Under the 14th Amendment
Reductions in Medicaid disproportionately harm the most vulnerable populations — including racial minorities, disabled individuals, the elderly, and low-income families. Such policies likely violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Medicaid cuts that disproportionately affect these groups result in an unequal allocation of vital healthcare resources, amounting to a discriminatory denial of equal protection.
Civil Rights Violations Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
For individuals with disabilities, access to Medicaid is essential for maintaining the basic functions of daily life. Under Title II of the ADA, public entities (including Medicaid) cannot discriminate against individuals based on their disabilities. By stripping away Medicaid eligibility, Congress is effectively forcing people with disabilities to risk losing access to vital treatments and healthcare services, violating their rights under federal law.
Reckless Endangerment of Public Health and Safety
Reducing Medicaid benefits to people who do not have the resources to access private insurance constitutes reckless endangerment. The failure to provide necessary healthcare services is a direct cause of preventable deaths, worsening chronic conditions, and widespread public health crises. Congress cannot claim ignorance of these harms when they are well-documented and widely recognized.
III. The Economic and Social Impact of Medicaid Cuts
Increased Economic Burden
The proposed cuts to Medicaid will not result in savings. Instead, they will increase overall public expenditures by forcing more people to rely on emergency rooms, increasing uncompensated care for hospitals, and raising disability claims as people become too sick to work. Healthy individuals contribute to the economy through labor, taxes, and productivity. Denying healthcare is not only morally wrong — it is economically shortsighted.
Exacerbation of the Benefits Trap
As income increases slightly, individuals may lose Medicaid eligibility, but without access to affordable healthcare, they are likely to fall ill and lose their ability to work. This benefits trap discourages economic mobility and ensures that millions remain stuck in a cycle of poverty and illness. Congress has a moral and constitutional obligation to address these inequities by providing universal access to healthcare for all citizens, regardless of income.
IV. Call to Action: Immediate Restoration of Medicaid and Passage of Medicare for All
We, the undersigned, respectfully demand the following:
Immediate restoration of full Medicaid coverage for all individuals who have been affected by recent eligibility cuts, and the elimination of any policies that reduce access to this vital healthcare program.
The immediate passage of Medicare for All legislation to ensure that every American — regardless of income, employment, or health status — has access to the healthcare they need to live healthy and productive lives.
Investigation into the harmful consequences of Medicaid cuts and the immediate cessation of any legislation that would reduce or undermine public healthcare programs.
V. Conclusion
The decision to cut Medicaid is not just a policy choice. It is an ethical one. Lives are at stake. Families are suffering. And the future economic productivity of millions of Americans is at risk. It is the responsibility of Congress to act decisively to protect the health and well-being of all citizens. Failure to do so will not only undermine the moral foundation of this nation but will violate the basic tenets of justice and equality enshrined in our Constitution.
We call on you to take action immediately. Restore Medicaid. Pass Medicare for All. Provide healthcare for all.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Information]
Instructions for Use:
Sign and Submit: This document can be printed out and submitted to your local legislators, as well as national representatives, as part of an advocacy campaign.
Petition: You can convert this letter into an online petition on platforms like Change.org to gather public support.
Legal Advocacy: If necessary, this document can serve as a foundational piece for an advocacy group or nonprofit group to pursue litigation or public campaigns.
Would you like me to help refine this, or do you need additional resources for a formal petition or legal action? Let me know what’s most helpful!