quite clearly that he made decisions, decisions that were controversial and they still are controversial. i mean being look we're still living through the conflict in afghanistan and iraq. those decisions that they made in september will forever have changed our life and the world today. >> now, to john king live from south carolina at the republican presidential forum. john? >> reporter: ted, thank you. welcome to the special edition of the cnn newsroom. ted, we're live in live in south carolina today. five republican candidates for president on this labor day to appear at a forum hosted by the south carolina republican senator jim demint. he's a tea party favorite. this is a state that likes to say iowa and new hampshire, win over the presidential field. south carolina likes its reputation of picking republican nominees. the five candidates will appear, we'll give you a chance to hear them. as you watch at home, maybe

you're a democrat or a republican, maybe not so sure. it's a good opportunity for you to hear from these candidates in extended form as they offer a presentation, answer some questions. the republican congresswoman, michele bachmann of minnesota is here. the georgia businessman herman cain, the former speaker of the house, newt gingrich. the texas congressman and libertarian ron paul and the former massachusetts governor, mitt romney all appearing at senator demint's at this forum in south carolina. missing, the texas governor, rick perry. at the last minute he decided to go home because of wildfires affecting his state. we'll get straight live to the event in just a moment. first, let's get a preview in a sense of how much this matters in a very busy september. this event here today, three presidential debates. including a tea party debate presented by cnn on october 12th, tampa, florida. yes labor day 2011 but a big impact had month on the presidential race for 2012. let's talk to the conservative editor of the red state.com blog and david gergen, our senior

analyst. david, you first, many people say i saw the president of the united states, the incumbent democrat in detroit. five republican candidates for president. is it too early david gergen or especially in this republican race, are we entering potentially defining and in some ways selective period where we may lose a candidate or two? >> this is a very, very important debate. it's remarkable that jim demint pulled this off and be the questioner at a forum. it's a debate in which all the candidates will try to appeal to the tea party. it's powerful in that movement. it's the kind of debate that can pull the candidates to the right in a way that can help define them for the general. it's not only important to sorting yourself out here in the primaries. but it can help to define you in the general election. south carolina has a tendency to do that for republicans. >> and eric, to that point, you're a friend of senator demint. he's quite influential in the 2010 midterm elections, raising

millions through his conservative pack to support tea party candidates around the country. sometimes to the consternation of the republican establishment and important event for him. does he look to be a king maker in republican presidential politics here? >> i think he could be. but i'm told they really, his staff is encouraging him not to pick someone but hold them accountable as best he can. if he can do that, that increases his influence more. in 2008 he picked mitt romney. it will be interesting to see how he positions himself. i would suspect he won't be the king maker. i would suspect he's the guy that tries to hold them all accountable for better or worse. >> you're looking at a live picture inside the room. this provided by the south carolina network, that's congressman ron paul as the candidates are introduced. governor romney to the right. let's continue the conversation. again, we want to give you a chance at home on this labor day to hear from the candidates. not 20 second sound bites but eight, ten minutes of remarks and questioning and answering.

speaker gingrich coming in. david gergen, your point, about pulling it to the right, the iowa caucus five months away, the new hampshire primary five months away, the south carolina primary which the last five in contested republican races, the last five south carolina winners have gone on to the be the republican nominee. the p of the united states is vulnerable, clearly. because the economy. primaries are about ideology. will republicans pick the candidate who is to the right or will they pick the candidate that they think has the best chance to beat barack obama? >> they're going to try to find both. that's always the magic formula. i thinker i can is absolutely right, he wants to hold the whole party accountable. not just one candidate. he wants to bring the whole party around, the tea party positions. i think the danger here for the -- for a republican is you want to appeal to the tea party, but you don't want to say something that's so incendiary that you drive away or alienate independents. >> they just explained to the

forum that governor rick perry was supposed to be here. he was here this morning for an event organized by the republican congressman and another candidate, tim scott. but then governor perry deciding, once he received word from texas the wildfires were spreading and he needed to get home. eric, eric son to that point. governor perry entered the race a couple of weeks ago. he's jumped to a big lead in south carolina. does he have the staying power or as many republicans from the other campaigns, mind you, you they mumble that he'll fade, he's the flavor of the month. >> it depends, i'm not willing to call him the front-runner because the polls show him ahead. typically the frontrunners leaves -- we've got five debates coming up in september to the beginning of october. he's going to have to have staying power. if he can stay through those debates and stay ahead without losing significant momentum, i think it's probably his race to lose. he'll probably be the nominee. this month is going to shake out for rick perry. everyone is going to pile on.

it will be interesting to hear what the candidates say today. referencing him however cryptically, particularly with him not there. >> one of the candidates who had momentum of late overshadowed by governor perry. is michele bachmann. the congresswoman from minnesota. also a tea party favorite. she's up first at this event. she's discussing the role of the federal government. let's listen live to congresswoman michele bachmann. constitution proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of the rules of government ever written. this is a wildly divergent view of the constitution. one recognizes the privilege of living in a government that shows constraint of political power. the other demonstrates the constitution as a means to an end, which sees elasticity and twisting and bending to achieve political objectives. this, i believe, will be our

choice in 2012. which view of the constitution will we prefer? and the beauty of the constitution is contained in the first principles. it's plain on its face. it says that we are united states. we have a federal government with enumerated powers. we have three branches of government. they're distinct but they're wholly compatible. we also have a bill of rights that embodies the core principle of the declaration of independence, which is that god has given to every individual inalienable rights and they cannot be denied by any human power. as president of the united states, my first question to any political appointee would be, what do you see as your role under the constitution? and when i am working with the congress of the united states, my guiding principle will be

that the government works best when it acts within the limitations of the constitution, but that it fails when it denies that principle and instead makes decisions made on political expediency. you see, i will understand something from day one as president that the current president of the united states has failed to demonstrate and understanding and it's this. it's that when the people of the united states place this awesome responsibility and privilege to be the president, what they have given is the ability to act under the constitution and to not to place one's self over the constitution that sacred document. >> thank you. michelle, i'll start the questioning. thanks for joining us. i appreciate it. let's continue on what you're talking about. it's one of the most important subjects to me is that our next president really understand what

limited government means. if you are president, what are the things in washington that you would downsize, eliminate or redirect to the state? are we doing things at the federal level that we shouldn't do at all? what would you recommend ha we not do anymore? what programs? >> well, all across the united states wherever i have gone, this is something that i have seen audiences tell me over and over as well as when i've gone into businesses and to speak with people directly. they see that the current united states government and its framework is acting outside of the bound of the constitution. probably the most obvious, i would say, jim, would be this. obama care. the individual mandate that is unconstitutional and currently is contained in obama care. i think another action that people see is unconstitutional are the appointment of czars to speak to the united states president. because that's by passing

congress and going directly to the president. here's something else. the president of the united states took an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the united states, but the president has also stated that he sees that the law of the defense of marriage act is unconstitution unconstitutional. he's said that he will not uphold that law. he has also said he will not uphold current deportation laws applying to illegal aliens. these are areas where we see unconstitutionality. within the spending that we're seeing with the federal government, the federal government is spending far in excess of what it takes in. areas of government would include, for instance, i believe, the department of education. because the constitution does not specifically enumerate, nor does it give to the federal government the role and duty to super intend over education that historically has been held by the parents and by local communities and by state government. to put that into the federal

government as we saw a department of education in the late 1970s has a ee advice rated the understanding that the control of education truly lies with the parents. that's just one example. >> thank you. let's jump subjects. this week president obama is going to give another jobs speech. [ laughter ] as cbo has said, we can't score a speech. jobs are clearly a big issue. the economy seems to be stalled. people are hurting. what would you do? what is your jobs program? >> well, as president of the united states and also as a former federal tax litigation attorney and also as a business owner myself, my husband and i have created and we have -- we have created jobs and run a successful business, we believe in profit. we actually think that profit is a good thing and that we should encourage that in this country. as president of the united states, one of the first things that i would do today is i would

offer to the united states congress that earnings that are accrued by united states company earned overseas, be brought into the united states with a zero percent rate on repate ration. part of the problem has been $1.2 trillion worth of earnings are staying overseas. this is real capital that belongs to american companies that wouldn't have to be borrowed at taxpayer expense, nor would it have to be paid back, nor would we pay interest on the earnings. it would come into the united states as a $1.2 trillion capital infusion and that would create jobs in the united states. secondly, what i would do, jim, what we need again, are not government directed solutions. we need private directed solutions. and we also need permanent solutions rather than temporary government gimmicks. that's what president obama has given to the american people. so i would change the corporate tax rate, which is currently about the highest in the world

down to about 20% level. ultimately, i'd like to see it go far lower. immediately, we could bring it down to 20%. i would put a moratorium on the implementation of obama care as the president did last friday on the i am plemtation of epa rules as well. one of the big economic issues in political issues in our country relate to unions and union power. government workers. folks have told me, you've had some different opinions on that over the years. as you know, right now the federal government has a law that, if you're working for a company that's unionized. you have to join a union unless your state ups out. south carolina is one of the states that has upped out. what's your -- unionization of government workers and the influence of unions. we saw it with obama care. what is your position on the

right to work, a national right to work law? >> i support the right to work law. both nationally and at the state levels as well. i think it's very important that all-american workers have the right to work. south carolina has that right. unfortunately, president obama has been seeking to deny that right in particular when it comes to the boeing corporation through the nlrb. when president obama appointed on nlrb someone who has a pro-union vote and a pro-union world view, they have denied to the people of south carolina literally thousands of high-paying jobs in this state. it isn't just this one company that's being impacted. it's other companies from other nations that are looking at south carolina. they would love to come and start businesses and build businesses here. i spoke with the governor of south carolina. she told me that companies as diverse areas as japan, canada and germany would love to be

able to put new jobs and new businesses in this state, but they're wondering what the ruling of the nlrb will be. they don't know if they will be able to enjoy the advantages of a right to work state. i believe in the right to work and i uphold that. as president of the united states, i can guarantee you, i would not appoint anyone to the nlrb who would not respect the right to work. >> thank you, michele. i'm going to turn you over to your colleague. >> michele, ronald reagan spoke all of his political life so eloquently approximate the shining city on the hill standing strong and true on a granite ridge. are we still that city? and if so, what is there the next level of our destiny and how would you take us there? >> we absolutely remain that city. people think now that we are in a time of decline. we could choose to go in that direction as my opening remarks said. we could have a view of the constitution that sees it as elastic and one that is not permanent.

those comments actually come from the book of matthew. those comments were also given in a sermon by john winthrop when he was on the air bella with some of the early pilgrims in 1630. he encouraged the pilgrims to live their lives in such a way. once they came to the united states that their lives would be that shining city on the hill. and, again, he went on to say that if we don't choose to live our lives that way, our nation will become but a by word and store -- inl now is our time for choosing. if we choose to live under the principals of the constitution, we will remain that shining city on the hill. but if we choose to disregard those principles, then we may be what reverend winthrop warned, become a by wood and story for the ages. i don't believe that's what the american people are choosing. some of our leaders in washington may so choose. but that's not what the american

people are choosing. >> how do you take us to the next level of our destiny? what access president, leadership, yes, what acts in leadership would you use to take us beyond the shining city on the hill? >> what i would do as president of the united states is make the case and make the defense, why the constitution of the united states must be observed and we can do that quite simply through bills like obama care. obama care is a bill that simply must be repealed. why? because number one, it has the unconstitutional individual mandate. when the federal government can tell any american that they must as a condition of citizenship purchase a product or service, whether it's against their will, effectively, the united states government will be dictating that price and they will become a dictator over our lives. this is an issue that must be solved in 2012. because i believe that obama care will so metastasize itself

into every part of american life that we will never get rid of it again and this is the foundation for socialized medicine. make no mistake about it. it will change the face of this nation forever. that's just one issue. but there are others as well. as president of the united states, i would want to take my background as a tax lawyer to explain why we need to change america's tax system. but before that, i would explain why it's a moral issue for the federal government to be spending almost double what it's currently taking in. because we're not only expending the capital of previous generations, what they have built up and current generations, what's even more morally reprehensible is the fact that this current administration is stealing from generations yet unborn to satisfy the dproet of government that we can't afford. if you had to choose between taxing consumption or production -- >> you've been listening to

michele bachmann, the republican congresswoman from minnesota. she's one of the five republican candidates for president appearing live today at a forum in columbia, south carolina. you're watching a special edition of cnn newsroom. you'll hear from all five republican candidates, extended conversations, questions and answers from the panel. a quick break here. our special coverage will continue in just a moment. app grapgic: yeah dawg! man 2: allow me to crack...the bubbly! man 1: don't mind if i doozy. man 3: is a gentleman with a brostache invited over to this party? man 1: only if he's ready to rock! ♪ sfx: guitar and trumpet jam vo: geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. and i was a pack-a-day smoker for 25 years. i do remember sitting down with my boys, and i'm like, "oh, promise mommy you'll never ever pick up a cigarette." i had to quit. ♪ my doctor gave me a prescription for chantix,

a medication i could take and still smoke, while it built up in my system. [ male announcer ] chantix is a non-nicotine pill proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these, stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these, stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some of these can be life-threatening. if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, tell your doctor if you have new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack. dosing may be different if you have kidney problems. until you know how chantix affects you, use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. ♪ my benjamin, he helped me with the countdown.

"5 days, mom. 10 days, mom." i think after 30 days he got tired of counting! [ male announcer ] ask your doctor about chantix. over 7 million people have gotten a prescription. learn how you can save money and get terms and conditions at chantix.com. it's schwab at your fingertips wherever, whenever you want. one log in lets you monitor all of your balances and transfer between accounts, so your money can move as fast as you do. check out your portfolio, track the market with live updates. and execute trades anywhere and anytime the inspiration hits you. even deposit checks right from your phone. just take a picture, hit deposit and you're done. open an account today and put schwab mobile to work for you.

welcome back to our special coverage. five republican candidates for president appearing at what is called the palmetto freedom forum in the state of south carolina. we'll bring you extended live coverage. up first, michele bachmann. let's go back live. auto she's answering a question now about human rights. would you as president propose appropriate legislation pursuant to the 14th amendment to protect human life in all stages and conditions? >> yes, i would. i would put forward a human life amendment. at the same time, i would do everything within my power to restrict the number of abortions that occurs in the united

states. perhaps no other federal law has done more good for prohibiting abortion than the hyatt amendment. i would do everything i could to keep out the taxpayer funding of abortion. >> can i follow-up? >> yes. >> as i say, some people believe that a constitutional amendment would be need today overturn roe vs. wade and short of that, the best we can do is put limitations around the edges and prohibit federal funding as we've done in the amendment. my question goes to a matter of constitutional principles pal concerning the respective rules of the government. president lincoln famously said in his first inaugural address that if we permit the policy of the government on matters that are essential to the whole people to be determined simply by the supreme court, we will have abdicated our responsibility, handed over self-government to that eminent tribunal as lincoln said. so given the clear mandate of the 14th amendment, empowering congress to enforce the

guarantee of equal protection, shouldn't congress act on that now? >> yes, i believe that they should. it is not only abraham lincoln that subscribed to that view. thomas jefferson did as well. >> that's right. >> jefferson understood that of the three branches of government, the most important was the united states congress consisting of the house and the senate much the second would be the executive and the third and a far distance third was considered the supreme court of the united states. if the supreme court, by a plurality of the justices may impose their own personal morality on the rest of the nation, then we are quite literally being ruled by those individuals as opposed to giving our consent to the people's representative. so most assuredly, that power does lie within the representatives an the senate. the people's representatives an the united states congress. >> and if it meant a confrontation with the supreme court, are you prepared for that? >> most assuredly. congresswoman, will the

person you choose as your vice presidential running mate share your pro life convictions and your belief in marriage as a union of husband and wife. >> without a doubt, that will be. in illinois, after passing a bill, the state decided to -- foster care and adoption agencies including catholic and protestant agencies. because the agencies in line with the teachings of their faith cannot in conscience place children with same sex partners. at least half of illinois's foster and adoption funds come from the federal government. should the federal government be subsidizing states that discriminate against catholic and other religious adoption agencies. >> i believe in equal protection under the law. this is clearly a situation where we've seen a disadvantage to children who are about to be placed either in foster care or in adoptive care. again, i believe that is one more example why the rulings of activists judges acting outside the original intent of the constitution are so very

dangerous to the foundation of the country. it goes back to your previous question which is who has the right to make those rules. i believe as president of the united states, in conjunction with the united states congress and senate, that we immediate to revisit that and change our rules so that we can have an equal protection under the law so that all agencies can provide that important care to children. >> but if a state legislature refuses to make funding available on equal terms to those providers who as a matter of conscience will not place children in same sex homes, should federal legislation come in to protect the freedom of conscience of those religious providers even if the discrimination comes not from the courts but from the legislature? >> well, yes, i do. i believe that that is a right that is guaranteed to every american under our constitution and bill of rights. >> if i could explore one more constitutional question with you

congresswoman. i was interested to see and i think i've understood you correctly that you've argued not only that the federal mandate, the individual mandate in obama care is unconstitutional. but that even a state individual mandate would be unconstitutional. if i've understood your position correctly -- >> that is correct. i believe it is also unconstitutional for states to mandate as a consideration of citizenship. a condition of citizen ship that an individual has to purchase a product or service even at the state government's behest. >> do you believe that the national contusion forbids states from doing that? >> i believe it's inherent in the constitution. >> in the national constitution? >> yes, i do. >> so to say it's inherent sounds like there's not a particular provision you can point to? >> i'm sure you could enlighten me as to that. [ laughter ] >> i wanted to know what the provision was. >> thank you very much representative michele bachmann. thank you very much. >> thank you all. thank you very much. [ applause ]

>> that is republican congresswoman michele bachmann of minnesota. she is the first of five presidential candidates. all republicans, all conservatives, appearing at a forum here in south carolina today. we're going to take a quick break. when we come back, the special coverage continues. the georgia businessman, herman cain, stay with us. o. toys ! the system can't process your response at this time. what ? please call back between 8 and 5 central standard time. he's in control. goodbye. even kids know it's wrong to give someone the run around. at ally bank you never have to deal with an endless automated system. you can talk to a real person 24/7. it's just the right thing to do. [ tires squeal ]

an accident doesn't have to slow you down. with better car replacement, available only from liberty mutual insurance, if your car's totaled, we give you the money to buy a car that's one model-year newer with 15,000 fewer miles on it. there's no other auto insurance product like it. better car replacement, available only from liberty mutual. it's a better policy that gets you a better car. call... or visit one of our local offices today, and we'll provide the coverage you need at the right price. liberty mutual auto insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

welcome back to the special edition of the cnn newsroom. i'm john king live in columbia, south carolina. five republican candidates for president participating in a forum here today hosted by the tea party favorite, conservative senator jim demint of south carolina. up now, the georgia businessman herman cain. his first question, describe your view of the role of the federal government. >> ronald reagan spoke eloquently of the shining city on the hill. two centuries and more as he spoke and my question is, are we still that shining city and if so, is there another level for our destiny and what would you

do to take us there and how would you define that to us? >> the answer is yes, we're still that shining city. because the last time i checked, nobody was trying to sneak out of america. [ laughter ] they were trying to sneak into america. despite our problems and despite our challenges. and we have a lot of problems. here's how i would take the united states of america back to the top of the hill. but we're still on that point higher than any other country in the world. first, secure our national security strength. i happen to believe that this administration is weakening america, militarily. this is not what americans want. the world is not safer. so we should not be a weaker nation. for example, there's a lot of concern about iran. when i was on the citizen advisory board of the strategic air command, i became aware of

many of our strategic military capabilities. we have capabilities that we can deploy around the world in order to help us and our friends to make sure that we keep them in check. so the first thing is to secure our position in the world and make it clear that america will not weaken its military strengths. my foreign policy approach is very simple. clearly, identify who our friends are. clearly identify who our enemies are. and stop giving money to our enemies and stop telling the enemies what our next move is going to be in a particular con country. second biggest challenge, the economy. so goes the economy, so goes the strechk the united states of america. we are the strongest economy in the world at our weakest point because of our free market system. we need to restrengthen that free market system.

and it starts with one fundamental economic truth. the business sector is the engine of economic growth. if you do not start with that principle, we're never going to move this economy. this is why i have proposed my bold plan of 999. take the current tax code which is a mess. it's been there since 1913. throw it out and put in a tax system with a 9% corporate income tax, a 9% tax on personal income and a 9% national sales tax. >> i was about to ask you that question, her man. you offered the answer to it. this other question is posed when i listen to your response. nobody is sneaking out of america. what do you do with those speaking in? >> those that are sneaking in, i believe we must first make sure we're working on the right problem. that's fundamental to my leadership style. i always challenge my staff when i was in business or anywhere, what's the right problem.

what should the priority be? do i have the right people around me? then we can put together the right plans. >> would you oppose amnesty in every form? >> yes, i would. here are the four problems relative to immigration. it's not one, it's four. let's secure the border for real. not talk about. let's enforce the laws already on the books. thirdly, i happen to believe that we can promote the path to citizenship that's already there. we simply need to clean up much of the bureaucracy that's preventing people from being inspired to come through the front door. fourthly, what i would do with those illegal aliens that are already here, empower the states to do what the federal government can't do, hasn't done and will not do. >> and then yet, we have legal immigration and america is the most generous country in the world with a million a year coming into the united states. is there such a thing as too many illegal immigrants?

what should that number be? can we get too many? >> i i don't believe there's too many legal immigrants because we all came from somewhere. it's just a matter of where we have a need and where we have an opportunity. in some communities, there might be a number that says we don't want to overload the system. but i think one of the things that has made america great is its diversity. >> herman, 50 million people in line in foreign countries waiting to come into the united states legally. so how many would be too many? >> i don't have an answer for that, congressman. because i would have to look at one, what type of qualifications do these 50 million people have, secondly, what type of skills and education do they bring with them. if they're bringing us more problems than opportunities, then 50 million might be too many. >> would you though, be favorable towards establishing illegal immigration policy that rewarded merits of applicants --

>> yes. >> i very much appreciate that response. then, let's see. i was going to take you back to the tax situation. because i know you have to -- >> phase one is the 999 plan. but phase two is to totally replace the tax code with the fair tax which is a national sales tax. i have not given up on that idea. the reason that i'm not going to propose to do that when i first become president is because we need to do a better job of informing and educating more of the american public so they can embrace and understand the paradigm shift from tax on income to tax on consumption. >> one of the biggest reasons x folks, that we need to get rid of the current tax code is because it allows bureaucrats to pick winners and losers. it also costs the american people $430 billion a year just to pay your tax bill. every time you send uncle sam a dollar, it costs you and me 30 cents to send in that dollar.

>> time is up. thank you, sir. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. cain for being with us today. >> happy to be here. >> my first concerns our obligations to human life. also the constitutional powers of the respective levels and branches of government. want to preface it by recalling abraham lincoln's first inaugural address. he was faced with an unconstitutional decision by the supreme court of the united states. the dred scott decision which usurped the authority of the elected representatives of the people, the congress and the president and purported to bind their hands indefinitely and dee sies civil. many argue today that we need a constitutional amendment to overturn the court's decision in roe vs. wade. however, we have what president lincoln didn't have, which is a 14th amendment to the constitution, which was of course, ratified after lincoln's

untimely death. in section 5 of the 14th amendment expressly authorizes the congress by appropriate legislation to enforce the guarantees of due process and equal protection contained in the amendment's first section. so as someone who believes as i know you do in the inherent and equal dignity including the child in the womb, would you as president propose to congress appropriate legislation pursuant to the 14th amendment to protect human life in all stages and conditions even short of a constitutional amendment overturning roe vs. wade? >> yes, i could support that. >> would you be prepared to confront the supreme court if it came to that, take your case to the american people? >> i would take my case to the american people. but first, let the congress challenge the united states congress to do its job. i have a great amount of respect for our system. i don't -- i believe that the president has a responsibility to be president. which means national security. number one priority. secondly, the president has a

responsibility to preserve, protect and enforce the cons constitution of the united states of america. i don't believe we need to rewrite it. don't try to work outside of it like in the current administration. thirdly, provide the strategic leadership on all of these issues that we face which means setting a real clear agenda. a people's agenda with the united states congress. engaging the american people in the solutions to many of the problems we face. not creating legislations that are big and complicated that the american people are left out of the loop. >> let me ask you a question about religious freedom an the rights of conscience. in the state of illinois, after the legislature passed a civil unions bill which the governor signed into law, the state government decided to exclude religiously adoption and foster care agencies, including catholic and protestant agencies. because those agencies in line with the teaching thes of their faith cannot in conscience place

children with same-sex partners. at least half of illinois foster and adoption funds it turns out come from the federal government. so my question is whether the federal government should be subsidizing states that discriminate against catholic and other religious adoption agencies. >> no. because i believe in the first amendment. so the federal government should not be subsidizing any situation where it's discriminatory against any legitimate religion in this country. >> okay. i'm going to shift now to the question -- >> that's herman cain, the georgia businessman. he's a republican candidate for president. one of fifa peering today in the state of south carolina. we're giving you live extended coverage of the candidates making their case. if you've been listening to us, a lot of social questions about abortion rights, about whether the federal government should allow tax dollars to go to organizations that refuse to give adoption benefits to gay couples and the like. the questioning continuing here. what is called the palmetto freedom forum. a quick break. more of this extended coverage

on cnn politics when we continue. hey ! chocolate, vanilla or strawberry ? chocolate ! chocolate it is ! yeah, but i'm new, too. umm... he's new... er... than you. even kids know it's wrong to treat new friends better than old friends. at ally bank, we treat all our customers fairly, with no teaser rates and no minimum deposit to open. it's just the right thing to do. it's schwab at your fingertips wherever, whenever you want. one log in lets you monitor all of your balances and transfer between accounts, so your money can move as fast as you do. check out your portfolio, track the market with live updates. and execute trades anywhere and anytime

the inspiration hits you. even deposit checks right from your phone. just take a picture, hit deposit and you're done. open an account today and put schwab mobile to work for you. is best absorbed in small continuous amounts. only one calcium supplement does that in one daily dose. new citracal slow release... continuously releases calcium plus d for the efficient absorption my body needs. citracal.

i'm john king live in columbia, south carolina. let's get back to our coverage. five republican presidential candidates appearing today at the palmetto freedom forum which holds a republican presidential primary. the georgia businessman herman cain is up now. after many questions about abortion, he's now answering about the economy and the federal debt. >> talking about they will work. let's look at the decade of the '60s. they worked. john f. kennedy, they worked in the '80s. we must first get this economy growing, upwards to a 5 or 6% gdp growth rate and the way i would go after cutting the cost and the debt is the same way i have gone into companies when i've had to take over a business that might have been failing. first, an across the board cut. pick a number. 10%. the hard word of a deep dive in every agency to eliminate programs that are, in fact, d

duplicati duplicative, outdated, based upon performance metrics and eliminate a lot of the programs. the government accounting office, as you know, jim, they routinely identify many of those things. but nothing is ever done. they are never actually acted upon. they're not going to be acted upon by 535 members of congress. they're going to have to be acted upon with the leadership of the president. so that would be my approach. we have to do a deep dive on every agency and find those and then get serious about restructuring the big programs like social security. i believe in a personal retirement account approach. the country chile, they had the same problem nearly 30 years ago. they went to an optional personal retirement account approach and they now have individual retirement accounts for their workers. so we must restructure programs, not just continue to trim around the edges to begin to bring it down. >> how do you know how much to cut? what's the goal? >> the goal is to cut deep until

we are spending less than what we're bringing in. that would be the target. >> that's what i'm trying to get to. what do you think about a balanced budget and do we need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget? >> i believe in a balanced budget amendment, yes. because otherwise, we're not going to have the discipline in washington in terms of collectively of getting there. all you have to do is look at the current situation in terms of what's being discussed with the super committee. you know, the idea in washington, d.c. for some, not you, not congressman steve. for some people is, if you reduce the growth,that's a cut. that's not a cut. that's deceiving the american people. so no, i do believe in a balanced budget amendment. >> let's talk about the federal reserve. the more i find out, the more worried i am about what they've been doing. we found out when we went through the legislative process for this tarp program which

opposed. the federal reserve actually matched that and upped it as far as the amount of money they were sending to banks. not only in this country but around the world. they've apparently bought nearly 90% of their own debt this year. now they're talking about another round of monetizing debt which is called quantitative easing. what would you do with the federal reserve? >> i believe we can fix the fed. the way we do that is ask congress to limit their ability to limit their authority. one of the reasons they got into these programs like quantitative easing is because of the size of the debt and because the debt was just spiraling out of control and other countries were not buying it fast enough. they came up with these kinds of plans. secondly, the federal reserve has, unfortunately, a dual mission. monetary stability and unemployment. that's like trying to hit two targets with one arrow.

i would ask congress to take away one of the targets. get them back to what they were commissioned to do back in 1913 and it worked well until we got into this situation relative to the debt that we have. i believe that we can fix the fed by asking congress to relimit their authority to do those kinds of things. secondly, we have got to get back to sound money. our dollar is suffering. it's similar to when we wake up in the morning an hour is 60 minutes. we don't have to go look in the paper to see what it's worth. we've got to get back to a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. >> do you need a gold standard to do that? >> yes, we do need a gold standard to do that. we can work our way back to a standard. that's the only way we'll make our currency the dependence, the currency that people around the world depend upon. yes, i do support establishing standards and there are many ways to do it in addition to a gold standard. we've got a minute.

i don't have time to ask a question, you to answer it. i'll give you a minute for closing remark. roub that? >> this whole election, folks is about the survival of this nation and about our liberties and president ronald reagan used to remind us about this thing called freedom. freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. it must be fought for and protected. one day we're going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our grandchildren what the united states of america used to be like. i'm not going to have that conversation with my grandkids. i don't think i'm not going to have that conversation with my grand kids and i don't think the american people want to have that conversation with their grand kids. i'm running for the united states because it's not about us, it's about the grand kids. >> time's up. >> thank you, herman. >> herman cain finishing up.

he's the second of five candidates at the special forum in north carolina today. our live coverage will continue in just a moment with the former house speaker newt gingrich.

[ doorbell rings ] hello there. i'm here to pick up helen. ah. mom? he's here. nice wheels. oh, thanks. keeps me young. hello there, handsome. your dinner's in the microwave, dear. ♪ where do you want to go? just drive. [ engine revs, tires screech ] mom? ♪

american exceptionism. let's get back to our extended live coverage. the court is very central here. the question also concerns the obligations of human life. but i'll begin with a quotation that you as a historian will find very familiar. it's from president lincoln's first inaugural address when he was facing the court's unconstitutional, in which the court usurped the authority of the elected presidentives of the people on the slavery issue. if the policy of the government

upon vitals affecting the whole people is to be erev kaably fixed, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that imminent tribunal, unquote. many argue today we need a constitutional amendment to overturn roe versus wade. however, section 5 of the 14th amendment, as you know, expressive authorized the congress by appropriate legislation to enforce the guarantees of due process and equal protection contained in the amendment's first section. so as someone who believes, as i know you do, in the inherent and equal dignity of all members of the human family, including the child and a woman, would you propose to protect human life in all stations and conditions without waiting for a final amendment? >> yes. and there's a reason -- it goes much deeper. there are five or six other issues. such as one nation undergod.

let me add to your lincoln quote. jefferson, being written about the question of whether or not there could be a supreme court wrote back, that would be an oligarchy. think about it. this is the center of american exceptionalism. we're a people of law. to be a people of law, you have to have a structure. the structure of the constitution says there's a formal way to attend the constitution. it's a very complicated process. the idea that the founding fathers also meant to say oh, by the way, by a 5 to 4 vote, appointed lawyers can be the equivalent of a constitution convention. it's an on second degree murderty. all of the starts in 1958 with a warren court assertion of supremacy, which is profoundly wrong. the supreme court is supreme in the judicial branch. and the judicial branch is one

of the three branches, it's the third branch mentioned in the constitution, and in the federalist papers, alexander hamilton says explicitly, it will be the weakest of the three branches. and so i think for the congress to begin a systematic process, one part of which is to eliminate the right of the courts to review certain things, and to recognize, we're going to have a big fight with the lawyer class. i mean, this is going to be -- >> what do you have in mind, speaker gingrich, congress's power under article 3 to regulate the jurisdiction of the supreme court? >> absolutely, among other things. i would also look very carefully at jefferson in 1802, passes the reform act of 1802.

the 17th judges said are you crazy? if we accept your lawsuit, jefferson will eliminate our court. now, i am not -- i want to be clear here. i am not as bold as thomas jefferson. i would do no more than eliminate judge barry and san antonio and the ninth circuit. that's the most i would go for. but let me say this. that's part of the national debate. that's not a rhetorical comment. i believe the legislative and executive branches have an obligation to defend the constitution against judges who are tyrannical and who seek to impose on american values on the people of the united states. [ applause ] >> i suspect what's going on through the finds of many of our viewers across the nation is this. speaker gingrich has a right to be concerned about judicial

overreach. that's clearly a problem. we don't want the rule of law to deteriorate into the rule of unelected lawyers. on the other hand, we need to defend judicial independence. so would your last statement be a valid warrant for concern that you're someone who doesn't respect judicial independence? >> i respect the independence of the judiciary in sdwrujing individual cases, unless the person doing the judging proves to be so extraordinarily out of the context of the american life and american law that they shouldn't be there. and i think there are occasions, i mean, you can't say we have a corrective balance between the three branches, except by the way that these two should never use it. i mean, either there. >>'s genuine tension between the three branches and the legislative and executive have a right on occasion to correct the judiciary, or the judiciary is a dominant branch and can dictate to the rest of us. as speaker pelosi once said, the supreme court speaks it's the course of god. well, i don't agree with her. >> can i shift to the question

of marriage and another question about the constitution related to it. we have a debate about the definition and meaning of marriage. it's a debate that's fundamental. should the debate in the end be resolved state by state with each state, or by the supreme court and adjudication such as what's spending now, or by the constitution or by a constitutional amendment, setting a national standard. >> i think we have to look at either -- again, to the point you make, either looking at legislation involving restriction or look at the constitution. given the current state that's currently happening i suspect you have to move to a constitutional amendment. i do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and we have every right to defend a 3,000 year clear record that that's what marriage is. and i don't think we should be intimidated against it. >> thank you. >> senator demint? >> thanks for being here. i guess i better move this up. >> president obama told us that

his near $1 trillion stimulus plan, obamacare, dodd frank, mortgage bailouts, all these programs would get our economy back on track, keep our unemployment below 8%. and obviously that hasn't happened. he's going to give another speech this week about his next jobs plan. what would be your proposal to get our economy moving and get people back to work? >> millions of jobs have been killed unnecessarily and i should all understand. this economy is in grave danger of getting worse, not getting better. and nobody should assume that 9% is 9 document. in the absence of effective activity now, not when i'm president in 2013, but now. we could end up in a much deeper problem. i just say that as a starting

point. second, it's tragic that president obama cannot learn that class war fair and bureaucratic socialism kills jobs. and it's sad he went to detroit, thor. fect symbolic place to go. if he had gone there to listen. detroit in 1950 had 1.8 until people and the highest per capita income in the united states. bad government has destroyed the city of detroit. they now have fewer than 800,000 people, over half their housing stock is unneeded. really bad government policies can do to america what really bad policies have done there. what would i do? first, i would urge the house to said immediately the appeal of do dodd/frank. it's inherently corrupt and killing small banks, killing snaul business, killing the housing industry. not a single house republican

voted for it in the first round. it would be easy for them to repeal, set the stage for a huge fight over the very nature of highly centralized bureaucratic government. secondly we need to replace the environmental protections agency with a environmental solutions agency. even obama has vetoed one of their rules, it should tell you how bad the agency has become. third, you ought to repeal sarbanes/oxley which cripples start whereupons and gains no particular advantage to the country. fourth, you need a 21st century food and drug administration whose job is to go into the laboratory to help the scientist get the product to the market as fast as possible so we dominate the world health market, the biggest market in the world. on tax policy, you ought to say no tax increase in 2013, period. go to zero capitals gains so hundreds of billions of dollars pour into the country, go to a 12.5% with corporate tax rate and i say to my liberal friends, ironical

ironically, general electric will pay more taxes at 12.5% than they take at 35% because it won't benefit them to hire all the lawyers to avoid paying taxes. every american factory as the most modern equipment in the world. you have to apolish the death taxes. we want family businesses exp d expanding, not getting smaller. we have to focus on job creation, not tax avoid dance. finally, you need an american energy plan. here in south carolina, you hatt $29 billion worth of natural gas offshore and that's almost slurly a gross underestimate. democratic bill, two democratic senators of virginia, it says virginia gets to develop oil and gas offshore, 50% of the revenue goes to the federal government,

37.5% to the commonwealth of virginia, 12.5% to land conservation and infrastructure. here, you could take offshore development to create jobs, take part of the royalties to dredge these charleston harbor to make it modern so when the panama canal is widened in 2014, you're ready for it. create jobs in charleston, jobs offshore, increase the wealth of state and the country. let me be clear -- i am for more revenue through economic growth. i'm for more revenue through the development of federal lands. i'm for more revenue through an american energy policy, i but i'm against raising taxes. >> what would you do to deal with our debt? >> former house speaker newt gingrich discussing his views on the government and the economy. we'll be back after a break here in columbia, south carolina stay with us.

♪ hey, gramps, what do you got in there? well, a trout lure, a set of dentures, broadway albums. you know -- stuff. yeah. about that. that big wheel behind us... yeah? he's got a flat-screen, swivel chairs, and a fridge. oh. hey, man! can we come over tonight? it's surprising just how affordable an rv vacation can be. visit gorving.com and get a free video. or see an rv dealer. go affordably. go rving.

riding the dog like it's a small horse is frowned upon in this establishment! luckily though, ya know, i conceal this bad boy underneath my blanket just so i can get on e-trade. check my investment portfolio, research stocks... wait, why are you taking... oh, i see...solitary. just a man and his thoughts. and a smartphone... with an e-trade app. ♪ nobody knows... [ male announcer ] e-trade. investing unleashed.

the former house speaker

newt gingrich answering a question here about the life and death decisions a commander-in-chief faces. >> recognizing painful speech, which is 702 words, references god 14 times and quotes the bible twice. i recommend to everybody to some day go to the lincoln memorial, stand there and read that speech outloud slowly, which is how he did it. in the intervening years, 620,000 americans have died. more than all of our other wars. and lincoln had been driven to read the piebl every day, to pray profoundly, to ask why god was putting us through this.

seeking gd's guidance strikes me being the heart of surviving in a worlgd of danger or temptation in a world where evil always lurks. >> thank you. on the immigration issue, and just a previous question comes back to me. there are 50 million people in foreign countries waiting to come to the united states. we let in over a million people a year, the most generous nation by far. yet we have 10 million people or more here illegally. what number from that number of a million. is there such a thing as too many legal immigrants? how would you define that? and would you support a merit system to identify their ability

to contribute to this economy? >> i think there are two practical limitation one is to the degree in which your economy is flourishing or not flourishing. if you're in a boom period, you can by definition absorb more people than if you are, as we are right now, in a period of either deep recession or depression, depending on your view. second is a question of assimilation. when you have a country which is proud of its history, which is proud of its language, which is comfortable saying to people, come to america to be americans, you can absorb more people than if you have a country whose elites are totally confused and are prepared to give up on being an american. if we're not going to be a melting pot, we can't afford to have people come here.

when you realize there are over 200 languages spoken? the chicago school system. over 180 languages at the miami dade college. i favor english as the official language of government. we need a unifying system which says, yes, we are eager to have people come to america as they always have, but we want you to come here to be american. we don't want you to come here to be confused about how this country operates. so that's a part of it. i also think -- this is controversial, but i think we have to deal with it. i think you have to break down an approach to immigration. you can not pass a comprehensive law. president bush couldn't pass one with the republican house and senate. president obama didn't pass one with the democratic house and senate. i have a very simple motto which is control of the border means 100% of control of the border. are drugs or people getting in illegally or not? if they're not, you don't control it, if they are, you

control it. there are more department of homeland security people, bureaucrats in washington than they are people assigned to the border. i would take half of the people currently serving in washington, ship them to texas, arizona and new mexico. >> would you extend the fence? >> i want 100% control of the border. the amexico border is a river. surely you should patrol a river. if you patrol a river by building a fence or putting 650 dhs bureaucrats standing shoulder to shoulder, there are a variety of ways of doing it. it's important to get this straight. we won the second world war in 44 months. victory over nazi germany,

fascist germany was three years and eight months. we have to control the border and we're told the people that can't control the border is baloney. thank you very much. >> former house speaker newt gingrich. when we come back, the libertarian favorite, ron paul. and was transported to paradise. my hair flowing with softness and shine... as nature intended. [ female announcer ] someone's been doing the herbal! herbal essences collections. aflac! oh, i've just got major medical... major medical. ...but it helps pay the doctors. pays the doctors, boyyy! [ quack ] oh yeah? what about your family?

♪ we added aflac, so we get cash! it's like our safety net... ♪ to help with the mortgage or whatever we need! so my family doesn't feel the pain too. ha! [ male announcer ] help protect your family at aflac.com. [ pigeons ] heyyy! hooo!!! my son and i never missed opening day. but with copd making it hard to breathe, i thought those days might be over. so my doctor prescribed symbicort. it helps significantly improve my lung function, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. with symbicort, today i'm breathing better, and that means... game on! symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. [ whistle ] with copd, i thought i might miss out on my favorite tradition.

now symbicort significantly improves my lung function, starting within 5 minutes. and that makes a difference in my breathing. today i'm back with my favorite team. ask your doctor about symbicort. i got my first prescription free. call or click to learn more. [ male announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

>> republican congressman ron paul of texas, once the libertarian nominee for president speaking here in columbia, south carolina. let's listen live. >> thanks for coming. the federal government now has a

lot of control over education, health care, transportation, banking, financial institutions. if you were president, what would you begin to down size, eliminate, redirect to states? what are the programs at the federal level that we need to get out of the federal government? >> that's a long list. i would rather give you a list of what we should keep. that would be a short list. >> let's turn it around then. >> well, we should have a system of sound money and properly rights and contracts. we should have a judicial system. we should have a government that -- and a defense of this country that was not meant to be for the states. but not a heck of a lot else. we weren't supposed to have 100,000 federal bureaucrats who carry guns. people are supposed to carry the guns. not the bureaucrats. so no, i think everything should

be up for grabs. and it should be grossly reduced. and both parties have added departments endlessly for the last five, six, seven decades. that's why freedom is not the issue anymore. it's tyranny, big government, and we're trying to struggle, to hang on to this. i think we're in a desperate state of affairs because it's slipping by. and with the economy in shambles like we have today, i think we're in much bigger trouble than a lot of people realize. >> you mentioned the several reserve. you and i have worked on the idea of an audit that's brings out a few things that we didn't know. apparently, printing a lot of money, buying our own debt. what is the solution with the federal reserve. do we need to return to a gold standard? you talk a lot about sound money. exactly what would you do as president? >> well, the president has a limit to what he can do because.

>> who causes the business cycle. how do we get into depressions and recessions. even i who have written about and talked about the federal reserve, i don't say close down the federal reserve in one day, but i would like to at least see competition. competing currency, let gold and silver be used for legal tender. today if you use gold and silver, you can go to prison. and the counterfeiters are over there at the federal reserve. [ applause ] and you join me and steve as well on auditing the fed. it's very important. what we found out, what we got in the audit was that we found

out in the bailout, the fed was voed with $15 trillion pazing out to their buddies one third of it going to foreign banks. when the issue of money goes before the feel, they always vote for sound money because it makes sense to say why should the politicians be able to spend at will and just print money when they need it. and then they wonder why we get into trouble. so yes, we have to take the fed on, because it does cause the business cycle, if you want to understand recessions and depression, you have to understand the federal reserve system. >> as you know, the president is going to call us on in this thursday and give us another speech on creating jobs. what would be your jobs plan? >> well, what you need to do is

repeal about 70 years of bad economic policy which isn't all that easy. we follow keyensian economics. they always recommend more spending. we have to do a lot. we have to repatriot our economy. our dollars have to go out and buy goods and services so our jobs go with it. it's a monetary issue. you also have to look at the tax code. everybody is talking about cutting a little bit on the capital gains. i want to get rid of the capital gains tax and get rid of the income tax and shrink the federal government. believe me, you would have the jobs then. it's not going to be easy because half the people in this

country, they sort of like receiving your money and they're not going to go away easily. but what it's going to lead to is the destruction of our currency and the bankruptcy of the country, and that's going to be much worse than somebody withstanding a cut. i believe you have to change the foreign policy. all great nations fail because they spread themselves too widely around the world. >> what needs to be changed with foreign policy? >> i would take the advice of the founders and george bush when he ran in the year 2000, no nation building. you know, don't be the policemen of the world. he was highly critical of clinton. so i would say that we should have a foreign policy of staying out of tangling alliances. why should we cheer on the entangling alliance of nato and

the united nations. it would mean bringing our troops home. let the troops come home and spend their money here. i could support, no, we're subsidizing the welfare state or germany by paying for their defense and japan as well as south korea. i wouldn't raise taxes to balance the budget. i support the general concept of a balanced budget amendment. i emphasize the spending side of

the equation, you know, that we have to cut the concept of government, the appetite for big government. but again, the balanced budget amendment, we should do it -- jefferson wanted to have it, they rejected him. you don't deal with the fed spending more money than we spend, you know, it doesn't accomplish anything. they spent trillions of dollars more, so we have to deal with the whole concept. >> there's going to be a bill on the balanced budget amendment. it's not defined as a bill that sets up the super committee. there is a balanced budget amendment on the calendar of the house that requires caps at 18% of gdp, requires a supermajority to raise taxes. would you support the

constitutional amendment. >> if we rebuild a lot of buildings because of hur kans, the gdp goes up. it's not a good measurement of economic growth. but no, i would certainly -- most likely i would support that, but i don't like the gdp approach because it's a deceptive economic term. >> robert rechter released a study that identified 72 different means tested government welfare programs. i'm pretty confident no one could list them from memory nor describe how they work. how would you address this welfare state that america has become. >> well, it's going to be difficult unless we change the attitude -- we're living with a third or fourth generation that

think entitlements are rights. entitlements means you can take someone else's money and the government is there to redistribute it. you can't do it. so often when we think about the entitlement, we think about, somebody is going to get food stamps. the big entitlements go to corporations. that's where a lot of money goes. you have to look at everybody who gets a check. and a lot of corporations get special benefits and checks. so that whole idea of redistribution of wealth has to be challenged. a any, that's the crisis we face. witnesses already, every time you go and make a little cut, the state government is trying to make cuts. there's a lot of dissent and we have to be prepared for that. the financial crisis is going to

get a lot of worse, though. we've fallen back on this idea that we can spend and print money and the devaluation of our currency is being devalued. and if you look at its relationship to gold, you realize how big of a trouble -- >> icon seed to your point on currency and the if ed. >> ron paul speaking there, consistent in controversial his views on dramatically shrinking the size and responsibility of the federal government. the special coverage of 24 presidential forum in columbia, south carolina, continues after this quick break. hey can i play with the toys ?

sure, but let me get a little information first. for broccoli, say one. for toys, say two. toys ! the system can't process your response at this time. what ? please call back between 8 and 5 central standard time. he's in control. goodbye. even kids know it's wrong to give someone the run around. at ally bank you never have to deal with an endless automated system. you can talk to a real person 24/7. it's just the right thing to do.

♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] with the most advanced engine in its class, 50 horsepower, dual overhead cams and fierce acceleration, the gator xuv 825i will shatter your expectations. discover the fastest most powerful gator yet, at johndeere.com/gator. discover the fastest most powerful gator yet, membership rewards points from american express. they're a social currency. with endless possibilities.

>> i'm john king in columbia, south carolina. back in a moment to our special coverage of the republican presidential forum here today. some quick housekeeping. if you've been with us for much of the past 90 minutes or so, you've noticed the candidates are being asked as they come out in order, they're in a sequestered room while the other candidates are facing the

questions. so they do not hear their rivals' answers. they're asked about abortion rights, the role of the federal government. ron paul asking questions now about his views on the 14th amendment. let's resume our live coverage. the courts and the states could immediately do what they want and we wouldn't waste the last ten years trying to stop the abortion. but when you refer and use the 14th amendment, it implies that the 14th amendment repeal the 9th and 10th amendment. i don't read that. the people who use the 14th amendment. it's now a federal government. it is true, the 14th amendment has been used to increase the size and scope of the federal government, which i disagree with, because i think it should be held on a local level. but in no way should you interpret the 14th amendment as repealing the 10th amendment in particular. >> it's certainly true that any constitutional provision can be

abused and many of them have been abused but the language of the 14th amendment is very clear. it says that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law or deny to any person the equal protection of the laws. >> if that were the case, no states would be involved in dealing with murder, injuries, second degree murder, manslaughter, robbery, armed robbery. everything is still states. you just can't pick up one. you should no state laws against murders. under your circumstances, it should be a federal issue. >> well, only if the murder laws are being denied -- the protection of murder laws are being denied to a class of people. so, for example, if the state withdrew its protections against killing if the person killing is of a certain race or ethnic group, then certainly the national government would be empowered to act. if it withdraws its protection from a class of human beings,

let's say the unborn, or if it were the newly born or handica handicapped newborns, wouldn't that permit or call for action on the national level under section 1 of the 14th amendment. >> well, if you wanted to stretch the interpretation and enhance the power of the central government rather than enhancing the power of the local government, because they deal with all kt a acts of violence. some of these things are more difficult. some states have capital punishment, some places don't. and it's still -- it's still -- i can understand your argument, but it really rejects the notion that the states are part of this republic we created. if you get gradualism more and more, soon it's the interstate commerce lauz and soon it's the general welfare clause. i think when we can and we certainly can, we've done it for all our history to deal with violence or murder.

this has always been a state issue. and i don't see why we would have to turn that into a federal issue. as a matter of fact, the founders never even thought we should have a federal police force, but we do. we have a federal police force. and you're sort of asking for more policemen, you know, at the federal level, and i -- i don't understand what -- why we've met so much resistance on removing the jurisdiction from the federal courts. we've done that ten years ago, you would have saved millions and millions of abortions being done because the states could have prohibited it right away. you could have done it with a majority vote with the president signing it. you wouldn't have to wait for the constitution to be changed. you wouldn't have to wait for roe versus is wade to be repealed by the courts. >> congressman paul, if i can shift to another issue, poverty is a reality in the united states of america, unfortunately. we're the greatest, wealthiest country in the world. we know past well intentioned

efforts, especially at the federal level to fight poverty have not been effective. often they've done more harm than good. but does that mean there's no role for the national government in fighting poverty? or do you see some role that the national government would play? if not, should this be a state issue? or is this an issue simply for private charity? >> well, obviously, it should be a state issue, a federal issue. you even admitted, it doesn't work very well. 10 no, it should be a state issue. but it has a responsibility, if if you understand the economic environment that's necessary that the federal government can create sound money, don't overregulate, don't overtax. don't run up deficits. that's the environment that the federal government creates, destroys the job. the whole system of taxation and monetary policy sends our jobs overseas. so yes, they have a responsibility but to say yes,

there's only a few people who need our help, so we're going to give food stamps for the for needy. well, what happens is you give food stamps for the very wealthy and endorse that principle 100%. >> time up? i'm very sorry. thank you very much. >> congressman ron paul. >> thank you. >> mitt romney was not going to attend but at the last minute he decided to come. governor romney live at the republican presidential forum in south carolina. and transfer between accounts, so your money can move as fast as you do. check out your portfolio, track the market with live updates. and execute trades anywhere and anytime the inspiration hits you. even deposit checks right from your phone. just take a picture, hit deposit and you're done. open an account today and put schwab mobile to work for you.

even though i'm a great driver, and he's... not so much. well, for a driver like you, i would recommend our new snapshot discount. this little baby keeps track of your great driving habits, so you can save money. [sighs] amazing. it's like an extra bonus savings. [ cackling ] he's my ride home.

how much can the snapshot discount save you? call or click today.

mitt romney, the last of five republican presidential candidates to deliver remarks and answer questions here in columbia, south carolina. let's get back to our live coverage.

>> thank you, governor. i'm living proof that a king is not sovereign. on the financial issues, i would just ask point blank, would you repeal dodd/frank? >> yeah, yeah. dodd/frank. there are some provisions in it that needed to be updated and it was appropriate for us to think about the regulations of the financial services sector. the regulations of the mortgage industry was not up to date. derivatives, kwerp way out of date with thinking about regulating those areas. we also had to ask ourselves what's the right amount of capital to go behind the assets that various institutes had. these are valid questions. it was appropriate for conference to write a 10 or 20-page bill, but 2,300 pages with a complete rework of the financial services sector did the one thing which the banking sector couldn't live with.

it created such uncertainty that the bankers, instead of making leans and encouraging the economy pulled back. and i think part of that flows from the fact that the people who were putting that together, dodd and frank, the two people who as much as anyone i know in this country were responsible for the meltdown that we had -- >> i'm glad that's said. >> yeah. it's hard to imagine that we would ask those two who were responsible for the committees overseeing banking. we would say to them, okay, why don't you write the legislation to change things? they should have started by saying okay, we'll resign and let somebody else do the job. so i say -- representative, i say, do we need financial regulation? of course. but we need streamlined, up to date, not overwhelming in such a way that it prevents banks from making the small loans that

individuals need. >> would you privatize fannie and freddie? >> the answer is yes. they've grown massively beyond the scope that had been envisioned. why the federal government is providing guarantees for over half the mortgages in the country, it's extraordinary. and how they could have done what they did. we all heard about liar loan where is people didn't have to tell what their real income was. most thought that was 1% or 2% of the mortgages being originated. it turned out in 2007 to be almost half of the mortgages originated. the failures of fannie mae, freddie mac, barney frank, chris dodd are so legion, we have to rethink about how we're going to support a growing housing industry. >> would you repeal the community reinvestment act? >> absolutely. that was a disaster from the get-go. look, i understand -- and by the way, this is not just democrats.

there's people on both sides of the aisle who touted for a long time the idea that we want to put people in homes and we're going to encourage people getting in homes and get banks to make loans to people who otherwise wouldn't qualify. and recognize, wh enyou make loans to individuals or businesses that don't qualify on their merits for a loan, you're adding risk. and maybe you can do that with 1% of the population. when you start doing it for half of all the loans going out, you're putting such risk in the system that when something happens, when one of the cards in this house of cards gets pulled out, the whole enterprise could fall and we're still recovering from it. >> sarbanes/oxley. >> that's the worst example to what has happened in what is known as the middle market in america. wall street journal wrote an article the other day. they say if you look at where job growth really occurs in america, when it happens at small business, the very smallest enterprise with one,

stwo, five, ten people, that's where a lot of jobs come in. but that's also where a lot of jobs go. those businesses start and fail. big business tends not to grow terribly much. what wraelly grows, they said, are the businesses in between. the small businesses that start doing so well they keep growing and growing and send products around the world. and what sarbanes/oxley did was made it more and more difficult for those businesses to secure the capital they need to grow. and so those businesses are being starved. they used to go to the public market and get people to encourage their growth. instead, they're now finding it harder and harder to do that because of sarbanes/oxley. big companies they're doing just fine. they can even live with sarbanesarbane sarbanes/oxley. small businesses financed through individuals and their sweat equity. but the middle market is burdened under sarbanes/oxley. it's not that we don't want any

regulation. we don't want to tell the world that republicans are against all regulation. regulation is necessary to make a free market work, but it has to be updated and modern and it has to have at its objected, not just finding the few bad guys, but also encouraging all the good guys. you know what, corporations are made up of people, employees, shareholders, customers are going to succeed and the private sector is where it's going to happen. >> in this heavy load that the presidential might well be, the time comes when the very difficult decisions are made when there are life and death decisions, and you've taken all the information in from each side of the argument and you have to finally say to all the advisers, now i'm alone with my decision, can you tell us how you would do that? >> 30 seconds.

>> well, i'm a highly analytical guy. i look at all the data and analysis and summarize it and look at it. i talk to my wife and get her feelings and sense of confidence and comfort. i go on my knees. i'm a person of faith. i remember seeing president george w. bush and he showed me a room in the white house where he said he looked at the paintings of other president who made tough decisions. and then with all that god has endowed with your mind and values, you make that decision. thank you. >> thank you. governor romney, it's good of you to be with us today. thank you very much. i want to begin with a very fundamental question that's about both our obligations to human life and also the constitutional powers of the respective levels and branches

of government. i want so begin by recalling lincoln's situation. in his first inaugural address he confronts the decision of the supreme court in the dread scott case about slavery in which the court usurped the authority of the elected respectives of the people, the government and the congress in a way that removed an entire class of human beings, even free blacks from the law's protection that others should have to recognize. and lincoln said on that occasion that if the policy of the government on vital questions affecting the whole people is to be erev kaably fixed by decisions of the supreme court, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that imminent tribunal. of course, after lincoln's death, we enacted a 14th amendment to our constitutional, a 13th, 14th and 15th. i want to ask you about the

14th. many people say we need to wait for roe versus wade to be reversed. however, section five authorizes the congress to enforce the guarantees of due process and equal protection contained in the amendment's first section. now, as someone who believes in the inherent and equal dignity of all members of the human family, would you protect human life in all stages and conditions? >> let me tell you what my orientation would be. which is i would like to appoint to the supreme court justices who believe in following the constitution as opposed to legislating from from the bench. i would like to see that supreme court return to the states the responsibility to determining laws related to abortion, as opposed to having the federal supreme court from the bench telling america and all the states how they have to do it. i think that's. >> the appropriate course.

now, is there a constitutional path to have the congress say we're going to push aside the decision of the supreme court and we instead are going to step forward and return to the states this poller? or put in place our own views on abortion. that would create obviously a constitutional crisis. could that happen in this country? could there be circumstances where that might occur? i think it's reasonable that something of that nature might happen some day. that's not something i would precipita precipitate. i would look to appoint people to the supreme court that will follow strictly the constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench. i believe that we must be a nation of laws. >> former massachusetts governor mitt romney answering a question about his views on abortion rights and where the power of the federal government lies on abortion rights. l thinking. it requires determination and decisive action. i go to e-trade and get unbiased analyst ratings

and 24/7 help from award-winning customer support to take control of my finances and my life. i tap into the power of revolutionary mobile apps. to trade wherever. whenever. life isn't fully experienced sitting idly by. neither is investing. [ birds chirping ] i've tried it. but nothing's helped me beat my back pain. then i tried this. it's salonpas. this is the relief i've been looking for. salonpas has 2 powerful pain fighting ingredients that work for up to 12 hours. and my pharmacist told me it's the only otc pain patch approved for sale using the same rigorous clinical testing that's required for prescription pain medications. proven. powerful. safe. salonpas. borrowed technology from ferrari to develop its suspension system? or what if we told you that ferrari borrowed technology

from cadillac to develop its suspension system? magnetic ride control -- pioneered by cadillac, perfected in the 556-horsepower cts-v. we don't just make luxury cars. we make cadillacs. an accident doesn't have to slow you down. with better car replacement, available only from liberty mutual insurance, if your car's totaled, we give you the money to buy a car that's one model-year newer... with 15,000 fewer miles on it. there's no other auto insurance product like it. better car replacement, available only from liberty mutual.

it's a better policy that gets you a better car. call... or visit one of our local offices today, and we'll provide the coverage you need at the right price. liberty mutual auto insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? try capzasin-hp. it penetrates deep to block pain signals for hours of relief. capzasin-hp. take the pain out of arthritis.

. >> let's get back to the republican presidential forum. mitt romney taking questions. >> we have to allow people to practice their faith. and when they have a matter of conscious, then she should be able to abide by their faith. and particularly when that's the case when there are plenty of opportunities provided. >> mitt, thanks for being here. >> let's start talking about unions. for me it's one of the biggest issues we're dealing with on the federal level. there's such an insidious relationship between unions and the democrat batter. the president and the contracts are trying to expand government unions at the state and the federal level because of the political support that comes back. and we sering the difficulty at the state level to make the reforms and cut back because of the resistance of government unions.

where are you on unions? and i'll put nit context, there's a federal law right now that requires an american to join a union if their work place is unionized. it's only if your state opts out of that law that your people are free not to join a union. and there are 22 states that have opted out. but there's still a federal law that requires americans to join june i don't knows. and we have legislation at the federal level to repeal that with a federal right to work law. i understand that you've said that's a state issue and the federal government shouldn't be involved. but the federal government is involved because they have the law that requires that. where are you on the federal right to work. and what is your opinion about government unions at the federal and state level. >> first of all, what i said was if a right to work piece of legislation reached my desk at the federal level i would sign it. >> okay. and the right course i believe

is to have states carry out their own right to work legislation. and as you know, right to work states, those 22 have created 3 million jobs over the last ten years. union states have lost 500,000 jobs. right to work is the way to go. that's number one. and unions play an important role in our country and can be -- the carpenter's union, for instance, treats their people in ways to provide good services. when people want to compare in a fair basis, that's great. when the government has people in unions, it presents a particular problem. and there are a couple of ways it presents a problem in my view. when unions are allowed to collect money from members. when one person, the chief executive of that union could give that to whichever candidate they want, that's simply a violation of the personal rights of that individual, and that shouldn't be allowed. and number two, i really have the problem with the idea that one person is able to collect money from all their members and then give it to a party or an

individual who that person made them be the one that decided on matters of legislation directing that union. it's almost like a form of corruption. i've got all this money i'm going to elect the person to give me what i want. so the power of unions in influence elections is a real problem. and the place i would address it is with legislation is saying individual union members may not have money taken out of their paycheck to go into funds which can then be directed by an individual in a way that might be different than what they would have preferred themselves. that should not be allowed. >> thank you. i'm going to switch subjects on you real quickly. what would you change about our foreign policy? >> a lot. first, i would have one. [ applause ] the president has been reactive, and anytime there's a reactive approach to foreign policies, sometimes you get it right,

sometimes you get it wrong. i'm glad he got some of it right. he was opposed to the surge in iraq, but fortunately he pursued a surge in afghanistan. but the president has, with regards to the arab spring, not had a policy. we have right now a president and an administration that called mr. assad of syria a reformer. this is a person -- hamas is headquartered in damascus has been harming hezbollah through syria. allowed terrorists to go through syria to go and kill our troops in iraq. and then he turns in his own people, assad does and we call him a reformer? this president should have called him from day one, what he was. a killer. so we need to have a very clear foreign policy. let me describe very briefly what the principles ought to be. number one, everything we do in foreign policy ought to be looked through with the following lens. does it make america stronger? our interest is to make sure america is strong, because a strong america is the best ally

peace has ever known. number two, does it promote our values? human rights, flee enterprise, freed freedom, democracy. we learn those falls tend to be associated with more peaceful people. and number three, can we link arms with our allies. when the president threw israel under the bus. the nation violates the principle of staying with your allies by virtue of showing you to do so. >> i don't want to cut you short. we have about a minute and 15 seconds. want to give you a chance to talk about health care. as you know, if you're our nominee, the president is going to say that you implemented obamacare in massachusetts. how would you describe what massachusetts did, the mandate to buy insurance at the state or the federal level? and you've got about a minute and i'll let you finish up in any way you like. >> actually about