tonya heller, medical director for the washington center for eat disorders says that's all too common. >> not everyone has to be underweight to have a serious eating disorder. >> dr. heller says the majority of people seeking help for eating disorders actually fall under this category. it's called eating disorder not otherwise specified or adnot that include binge eaters, those who overexercise or people who eat excessively at night. >> a big concern is many people don't view eating disorders as being as serious an illness as the other more publicized disorders. >> research shows it could be more serious. one study found these types of disorders were more deadly and that anorexia or bulimia. at heller's practice, nearly 60% of patients have adnos. >> it's unbelievable that patients sti report that they can go to hospitals and other clinicians and if they have an eating disorder not classified as something more familiar to clinicians, the illness may be brushed off. >> the doctor says complications are like any other disorder and can include cardiac problems, kidney failure and osteopo

heller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, thousands of nevadaans have been surveyed and an overwhelming number oppose the government takeover of health care. yet, 2/3 of nevada's delegation will defy their constituents and vote with their leadership instead. this $2.6 trillion legislation will raise nevada taxes, kill nevada jobs, remove nevada seniors from medicare and saddle the state of nevada with budget-busting mandates. i urge my colleagues from nevada to speak for nevada, not their beltway ben factors, when casting -- benefactors, when casting their vote today. the speaker pro tempore: time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from oregon, a member of the committee, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. blumenauer: today's victory for health care reform and coverage for 32 million americans is not just the culmination of 15 months of hard work in this congress. it represents the historic accomplishments s

he asked, well, are we just going to be applying what we said in heller, an individual right to own a gun in the home for self-defense? or is it a right to parade on the streets with guns? mr. gerra and mr. clement resisted any limitation on the right. >> lehrer: it's an absolute. >> whole second amendment ought to be applied to the states. but the justices also made very clear that they felt that if the second amendment were applied, there is going to be room for regulation by the states. and that's what they told mr. feldman who represented the city of chicago. and they also said that in their 200 0 opinion in the heller case, the district of columbia case that there will be flexibility for the states and local governments to regulate guns. >> lehrer: what does all this add up to you, listening to all of this. >> i take three things away from the arguments today. first it's highly likely that the supreme court after recognizing this individual right will apply it to the states and not confine it to the federal government. second, i think in the 2008 decision and in their comments to

heller was brought against the district columbia. issue lies before us because the bill of rights was originally written as applied against the federal government. not until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868 to the bill of rights apply against the states. and then it became a question of what rights in the bill of rights were applicable against the states. the unfortunate event that followed five years after ratification was the slaughterhouse cases. the court eviscerated the privileges or immunities clause from the 14th amendment, and thereby they would try to do this under the less active to substance -- substantive due process clause. it became a very vexing issue thereafter. it emerged for example in the series of substantive due process, which have given many conservatives including those on the court sleepless nights because they see it as an opportunity for judicial mischief, defined rights know where included that in late -- not even in our unenumerated rights. the court tomorrow faces the question, not simply do

versus heller supreme court case of two years ago. >> the heller case is helpful to us.h of the heavy lifting in this case already. >> reporter: in the d.c. case, the high court struck down the district gun ban on the grounds people in the federal territory could not be denied their second amendment rights. >> if the district had won that case, we wouldn't be here today. >> reporter: the argument being made by the city of chicago is that local government should be ble to continue to regulate what firearms can be owned and carried within their boarders. >> the city of chicago does provide for rifles and shotguns in homes legally. i think handguns are a badoy eah. >> reporter: but mcdonald disagrees and predicted victory in the case. >> in the long run, it will be worth it, believe me. i may be going on, but it will be worth it. >> reporter: now mcdonald is not against all gun regulations. in fact, if his side wins this high court case, he hopes the city of chicago considers new legislation requiring gun safety classes for all new chicago gun owners. in chicago, steve brow

i think we debated heller and just ties had thisball back and forth. we are all talking about the history from 1878 to 1891 when we rad if id to the bill of rights. i think that was a kind of cloudy history in some ways. because the amendment is a little bit tricky with it's preamble. and the court kind of divided very closely. if you look, you see something different. the framers of the 14th amendment, almost all cared a lot about the right to bear arms for the reasonable that all of the rebels in the south had guns. and the people didn't have guns were the unionist that were in the south and the freedman. and any property that those, any possessions, any -- you know, the families of the former slaves, the property, and everything that they were able to get after the war was under assault. one the things that the founders of the 14th amendment, one the reasons they wanted to adopt the amendment was to make sure that the freed man had a right and ability to protect themselves and their family from the first former rebels and then the clan which started

because heller was the case that was brought against the district of columbia, and so it involves onlythe federal government. the issue arises, of course, because the bill of rights was originally written and applied against the federal government, and not until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868 did the bill of rights applies against the states. and then it became a question of what rights in the bill of rights were applicable against the states. the unfortunate event that followed five years after ratification was the slaughterhouse cases. and those cases, the court eviscerated the privileges or immunities clause from the 14th amendment section, and thereafter the court would try to do under the less substantive due process clause what was meant to be done under the more substantive privileges, or immunities clause your candidate in a very vexing issue thereafter. there emerge for example, the theory of substantive due process, which has given many conservatives, including those on the court, some sleepless nights because they see it as an opportunity for judicial mischie

from your right cathy kiley of "usa today" ralph winnie and mark heller of the watertown daily times,ick dunham of the houston chronicle and former president of the national press club. matt kibbe and the president of the press club committee. skipping over our speaker for a moment, andrea stone senior washington correspondent for aol news and the speakers committee member who organized today's event. ambassador c. boydon gray co-chairman of the freedom works foundation and a guest of the speaker and diana morelo, jonathan solant of bloomberg news also a former president of the national press club and adam brandon vice president of communications for freedom works. [applause] >> our speaker today is someone many republicans would love to have over for tea. dick armey is no stranger to washington. after 18 years in congress during which time he became house majority leader, he now has a second career in the leader of the tea party movement through his group freedom works. when you saw citizens rally against taxes they considered too high last april or packed town hall meetings to prote

joining us now with the trader triple play, bobby heller, holly liss and independent energy trader ramsey balibise. i apologize for that, ramsey. >> that's okay. >> holly, we have had a wild week, two sloppy auctions and fed speak and financial regulation. how do you set yourself up? >> like you said, it is a lot of data. i think right now even though we have had an extreme move particularly at the long end of the curve we saw ten-year levels not seen in probably ten months. you have to be cautious that we probably are at the high end of the yield range. we weren't able to get through 390 without conviction, so the caution is that the yoold level holds and we move back to a level of 365, particularly if the employment data has not come out as strong as people are expecting. >> bobby, what about next week for stocks? we have the employment data but we also have a holiday in the middle of things, volume lightening up, end of quarter. there seems to be a little bit of pressure. >> exactly what you said. unemployment data will continue to be a factor in the market every time we come out with

heller was argued against the district of columbia.ent that followed five years after ratification was the slaughterhouse cases. in those cases, the court eviscerated the immunity's clause from the 14th amendment, section one. thereafter, the court would try to do under the less substantive due process clause what would be done under the substantive privileges or the immunity clause. it became a very vexing issue after that. there emerged the theory of substantive due process, which has given many conservatives, including those on the court, some sleepless nights because they see it as an opportunity for judicial mischief to find rights know where included among even our unenumerated rights. the case tomorrow raises the question not simply does the second amendment applied against the states, but on what grounds does the second amendment apply against the states? most people are of the view that the court will find that the amendment does apply, that individual rights goes against states and municipalities. so draconian statutes like t

thing about this case is that you have a great or regionalist from the hell -- originalist from the heller case really badly misreading the original meaning of the 14th amendment. the question i find most fascinating in this case is the question explored in the "post" today -- howell are most public proponents of originalism dealing with the incredibly powerful argument that scholars and organizations across the political spectrum -- the original public meeting of the 40 the amendment spoke to incorporation and required overturning the slaughterhouse cases. >> one of the fascinating aspects of this case is that it brings to the for the problems conservatives have had with judicial mischief and judicial activism on to this court. the conservatives on the court our textile --u are --alist -- textualists. they have to make sense of the text staring them in the face. for 150 years, they have ignored that taxed as if it did not exist. there is the text that says that no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states. and it has been inoperative for all this ti

today, ralph laney of the eurasian business coalition, todd gilman of the dallas morning news, mark heller of the watertown daily times, rick dunham of the houston chronicle and former president of the national press club. matt kibbe resident of freedomworks. andrew schneider associate editor for kiplinger washington editors and the chairman of the national press club speakers committee. skipping over our speaker, andrea stone, senior washington correspondent for aol does in the speakers committee amber who organize today's event. ambassador c. boyden grey cochairman of the freedomworks foundation and a guest of the speaker. diana of the milwaukee journal sentinel, jonathan salant of limburg is also a former president of the national press up and adam brandon, vice president for communications for freedomworks. [applause] our speaker today is someone many republicans would love to have over for tea. dick armey is no stranger to washington. after 18 years in congress during which time he became house majority leader leader he now is his second career as the leader of the tea party movement

heller: thank you, madam speaker. another day, another mised opportunity -- muss -- another missed opportunity. nevada's unemployment rate is at 15% so you have to ask the question, where are the jobs? do i town hall meetings queekly in -- weekly in my district, i surveyed thousands. the question asked, what should be the priority of this congress? should it be jobs in the economy or health care? over 80% say we should be concentrating on jobs and the economy. instead majority leadership wants me to vote for the louisiana purchase or the courthouse for kick -- corn husker kickback or gatorade and the list goes on and on. despite the majority's effort to hide this vote, the american people will not be fooled. the american people know the purpose of this health care bill is to make sure all americans have the same bad health care. i encourage my colleagues to listen to the american people, create bipartisan health care reform and get americans back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has

one might say that it is the second act in the second amendment series that began a year ago in the hellerur right as an individual to keep and bear arms. it was the first time that the court had decided that -- had decided that matter quite so frontily. the question now is does this wright applied to the states? -- does this right apply to the states? the bill of rights was originally written and applied against the federal government did not until the ratification of the 14th amendment did the bill of rights applied against the states. then it became a question of what rights in the bill of rights were applicable against the states. the unfortunate event that followed five years after ratification was the slaughterhouse cases. in those cases, the court eviscerated the immunity's clause from the 14th amendment, section one. thereafter, the court would try to do under the less substantive due process clause what would be done under the substantive privileges or the immunity clause. it became a very vexing issue after that. there emerged the theory of substantive due process, which has give

thing about this case is that you have a great or regionalist from the hell -- originalist from the hellercase really badly misreading the original meaning of the 14th amendment. the question i find most fascinating in this case is the question explored in the "post" today -- howell are most public proponents of originalism dealing with the incredibly powerful argument that scholars and organizations across the political spectrum -- the original public meeting of the 40 the amendment spoke to incorporation and required overturning the slaughterhouse cases. >> one of the fascinating aspects of this case is that it brings to the for the problems conservatives have had with judicial mischief and judicial activism on to this court. the conservatives on the court our textile --u are --alist -- textualists. they have to make sense of the text staring them in the face. for 150 years, they have ignored that taxed as if it did not exist. there is the text that says that no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states. and it has been inoperative for all this tim