First, none of the three are proper subjects for the federal government under the Constitution. Neither domestic relations law governing marriage, nor health care, nor tort law are matters enumerated for the federal government.

Powerful groups on the liberal or conservative side ignore the limits of the Constitution in order to change that in each case. Gay marriage advocates want the federal judiciary or Congress to override state marriage laws.

President Obama and Democrats forced the individual insurance mandate down our throats with the assistance of the AMA and health care-related associations, and those same health care associations have enlisted Congressional Republican leaders in an effort to override state tort law by effectively immunizing them from medical malpractice lawsuits.

In each case, the advocates ignore centuries of established common law precedent and the clear writings of the Founding Fathers. Congressional Republican leaders oppose gay marriage and Obamacare, but their own hypocritical campaign for federal limits on medmal lawsuits invites Democrats and gay marriage advocates to do so for their causes.

The second similarity is that truly principled constitutional conservatives and Tea Party-side legal experts recognize that Uncle Sam has no business overriding states' rights in any of these cases.

Ken Cuccinelli, Attorney General of Virginia, gave an interview last August in which he stressed the importance of maintaining a consistent defense of the state' authority over marriage. "The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is not a subject that the federal government can exercise jurisdiction over," he said. "Including the courts."

"Frankly, I think it is worth some consideration for the things that aren't reached by the federal constitution to just leave it to each state... As between the two options, I certainly prefer the states deciding these constitutional questions and I don't mean just the one you raised. I mean all the ones that fall in that gray area of whether or not the federal government can do it. If it is a gray area, the federal government shouldn't be able to do it."

Cuccinelli became nationally known for his lawsuit against Obamacare, and he took a forceful stand against federal tort reform last fall in an opinion piece and during the Republican Presidential debates.

I'm thankful that my state's Attorney General understands the proper role for federal power and won't hesitate to defend our rights in court.

Other Republicans have compromised their self-proclaimed "Constitutional conservative" status by pushing to federalize tort law and calling for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, even though most states have already done so through election referenda.

Rep. Michele Bachmann exposed her hypocrisy over states' rights, simultaneously slamming Obamacare while pushing federal medmal limits.

Cuccinelli nailed her on it during a debate, but Rep. Bachmann remains an undaunted flip-flopper on states' rights.

Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Rep. Bachmann failed to grasp their own inconsistencies on these issues during the campaign, while Ron Paul remained a true constitutional conservative on all three issues.

A constitutional amendment to define marriage isn't necessary unless the federal judiciary overrsteps the limits of its authority and crushes states' authority over marriage law.

Overstepping constitutional limits brings political consequences. Voters no longer trust Democrats who insist that they can force us to buy a commercial product such as private health insurance, and we want the Supreme Court to declare the mandate unconstitutional.

But Americans also won't easily trust Republicans who proclaim their allegiance to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then sell out to business interests in the heat of political campaigns by pushing for tort reform.

Gay marriage advocates who try to shove their interpretation of the Constitution down our throats also face a real backlash from a public sick of excessive federal power in areas reserved for local control.

That's all true, but it's not complete. Industry-side Republicans just see the world differently than people like me and Tea Party allies, such as Judson Phillips or Jenny Beth Martin, who lead and populate the grassroots Tea Party groups, or Rob Natelson and Randy Barnett, who write about the constitutional bases for rolling back Obamacare and limiting the size of the federal government. The pro-Wall Street or U.S. Chamber types, such as the Koch brothers' groups and lobbyists, don't really see the imperative to radically reduce the size and scope of the mechanisms created over the past 50 years to regulate the everyday activities of the American people. They would be perfectly satisfied if the EPA, CPSC, and FDA were forever oriented to be pro-business. They don't care about the historical or constitutional arguments by the Founding Fathers for the right to a civil jury trial. That side of the Republican Party "talks the talk" of limited government but actually fights for federal pre-emption of state laws and courtrooms in almost every aspect of commerce, from products liability law to medical malpractice lawsuits to financial services regulation. That's the difference I see. I'm as pro-business as any of the Kochs towards taxes (too high), overt federal regulation that kills job creation (too much), Obamacare (the worst) and so on. We just fundamentally see the role of the civil jury trial and state courtrooms very differently. The Seventh and Tenth Amendments never enter into their discussions. That's why they argue for H.R. 5, a federal medical malpractice bill, with no citation to any recent constitutional scholarship, while I can point to the writings of numerous respected scholars and like-minded Republicans who know that bill is unconstitutional.

And not all politicians or groups who proclaim themselves as "Tea Party" are really Tea Partiers. The Club for Growth, one such "Tea Party group" named in the Carney article, has asked prospective candidates for their views on federal tort reform and, I assume is for that concept, regardless of its unconstitutionality. Numerous Republican politicians who pass themselves off as "Tea Partiers" or "constitutional conservatives," starting with many Congressional Republican leaders, are pro-federal tort reform in order to bash trial lawyers and collect campaign contributions from business. It's an old habit that dies hard.

Fortunately a growing number of Republican politicians, at all levels of government, are recognizing the reality that federal power isn't unlimited and all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights are worth protecting in law. I've personally seen a number of Republican politicians take a step back from the tort reform agenda and re-evaluate their position upon reading statements by experts they admire, such as Randy Barnett or Sens. Coburn and Lee. The mission for those of us seeking constitutional consistency inside the Republican Party is to persevere, support and convert those open to rational discussion, and recruit candidates to support limited government and constitutional rights before they become committed otherwise. And we have to differentiate between the phony and the real constitutional conservatives.

The last section of the memo is titled, "Reforming the Medical Liability System," and it begins by condemning state supreme courts: "Many state supreme courts have judicially nullified reasonable litigation management provisions enacted by state legislatures... " So the leaders apparently don't have much respect for the state judges selected or elected under the state constitutions. But state legislators don't get any respect either, with the leaders stating later in that section, "Further, abusive state tort laws drive what is known as 'defensive medicine,'..." Well, those state tort laws don't just drop out of the sky; they're enacted by the elected representatives of the people under state constitutions.

So, in a little more than a page, the House GOP leaders tell the 50 states and the people who elect the state legislators that they're all idiots unworthy of governing themselves. It's the arrogant, Washington-know-it-all attitude on open display, exactly what the House Republicans were elected to replace under the Capitol dome.

And in between those two quotes is another one, the Big Lie about H.R. 5: "The HEALTH Act also does not preempt any state law that otherwise caps damages." EVERY constitutional scholar who has studied and written on the bill, from Randy Barnett and Rob Natelson and the Heritage Foundation to Ted Frank and Walter Olson, has concluded otherwise. In almost 8 hours of debate on the House floor, and several more this week in the House Judiciary Committee, proponents of H.R. 5 haven't been able to point to ONE, just ONE current scholar who believes that H.R. 5 protects or respects state laws.

The leaders' utter disregard for the Constitution, buttressed with their extraordinarily hypocritical stand against Obamacare on constitutional grounds, is the reason why a small but increasing number of House Republicans are vocally rebelling against the leaders' insistence on H.R. 5. They know that federal tort reform is as violative of states' and individual rights as Obamacare, as both are based on the overly broad, Wickard v. Filburn interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

These Members also realize that the pittance supposedly saved by H.R. 5, now estimated at $41 billion over ten years (under 1% of the total budget for that period), is dwarfed by Rep. Ryan's own proposal to change Medicare and Medicaid, where the real health care dollars are spent. He estimates his plan would save hundreds of billions of dollars. Whether you agree with that proposal or not, it's an option defended by the senior House Republican on the federal budget.

But House GOP leaders won't propose or defend that plan. Instead, it's full speed ahead on the road to federal control of state courtrooms.