rd be. t onees u heraorefe an'stloio a potical week. political book. and i was working on it really intensely at "usa today," but itnitndrke t pblinme i01 u k soier o memoirs -- >> there is competition. >> from the woman herself. but since mine is not a biography, it's -- >> whais she now? isng cueahe 3,ie iesouo h t take a look at what she's saying and modify as i need to. but whole chapter on, for exam jbro ein leoubi

inmiout oe court. miguel estrada who might have been positioned once upon a time. so you can await that. and switching to reuters just lies sr a ma w ic itck yb f the alerts. my job is more to kind of step back and look at the broader trends. i te fin alyll even tgh i ths l nsato yo wd awsr ti. >> anybody else? i want to be fair here. anybody else working on a book they want to out? >> [laughte joyoidogy stco, yll t whe. helwonn airplane, always traveling. i talked to her right before health care, and i said are you going to be there?

and he said i've got so much and, aheai inctd slaow th statute. i said do you think you know which way they're going? no clue, no clue. and she might not have. and it turned out she was inhe trthekfo lis sla oent no k ay tun sii should say in this case is finished. so she didn't know exactly when it was going to come eier. e abouav ecit g c ju28 bhesre e rend made me quite nervous. and she wasn't even there for the arizona immigration case. but she's still doing her civics thing anjustut t eivetduhe ofe em t.s to ahe wast

interviewi her, joan does such a good impression, i kept thinking, sh soundsac >>enaomu t h gh d kifys ac tooouty justice steeps walked in about ten -- stevens walked in about main.ipes yelo ten laste the current nine justices all in good shape as he is? are there any retirements likely to be seen in the nexyear or two, do unk r thres hee? coin w hwa reutrodtm think monday, so i'm -- thurmond, so i'm pretty much used to them staying around forever. [laughter] you know, the general view is sof to atnneer owre

he serofan eti yeton winy retires during an election year. so before we all head out, i'm sort of assuming that nobody's leaving this year, d no one seems knobad th he.ss binad tee nsiia tithe y a le t in about retiremes but, fortunately, it's quiet on that front this year. >> the physical renovation of the courthou has been goingon fi orearsowes mue nngpln. s , mafee t c? itedieno e s? for a while the public information office was in a trailer outside. i assume it was a great improvement when that phe inhe bin and you alled back thouanal uep o f door.

and he brings that up as often as he can. but it doest effect our j use mhooshu th dfrim me ouh ogek a nice and imperfect metaphor. [laughter] >> and if you look at the court building now, they're havi to do repair work on the fronfrom sootthonthuake that wha in urseowveh e,eri te ss d seyutup a scrum that will resemble the front of the court so you can see a pretend supreme court while they fix the real one. arthodzael at aboth le d abisffro. and finally, the closing of the courthouse doors, that's declared by them, by the juices theelves. wiheodzat have anything to do et swi o

tbe in r tom ess. , stot q lost in last week's news was the petition filed by paul clement asking them to look at the nsrictse reenve tnd e li t se rtvoigac cases coming up from d.c. and affirmative action case from texas. and perhaps the same-sex marrge case from california masoth reusn ti'o inshlo-te ine? w hese we know they've taken is the aofficialtive action case out -- affirmative action case out o texas. weo have a court with fve of rcoouvent onininubc eradioli. so while that case has various vehicle problems and comes from

ace with a very idiosyncric ss pesese nss assthe, deinexig d ulineyta ea c they love giving paul clement the opportunity to get back to the lectern, and i think for same-sex marriage advocates if theyad thowehe ca werlly ksthedas whpe a already lawfully married is not shoving marriage down the throats of anybody, but merely making the federal law congent totate w nr west adna grn 'susirsi sen on the probate case would present. >> i sure agree with that. on the affirmative action case, i think the thing to watch is whr g t be plifrengote

meintase, otherwise they wouldn't have taken it. but you remember, texas had this top ten system that theop ten ar t serh ol mallmi t st diithh st then in addition to that texas started using races one admissions factor. and the challengesll soertul y ag o g'vot rs tugth one system, the top top ten, you can't go beyond to consider race. and that would be, essentially, ra ustio w disaw what was said in the michigan case, and that would be, obviously, a big dl

that'll effect universital nd cry cotualnd t ll u r in college admissions. it's interesting to me that this case comes from texas because it certainly seems if there was any leslatth wou rule at cn' u t r i ermins w soon k why that's the place for this case, but it make it even more interesting, i think. >> you know, a little sideote tehage tou t te. cova se gell cova s,as republican attorney general, urging the court not to take the case because they di't want to go fuher withny a erth nre arouso b

lir raheriof him sudden p kind of upped the stakes in some way in terms of what the representation would be. he h a very fine estiwhd wth ese erlk t,gh ah weoucaefhe haom who has the sort of conservative cred of having been in the w. bush administration and its solicitor general and mingt th iny idgiwa abele c a of mgae.wngid he did very good job in lawyering through a difficult casenvolngchrine et awood sttsm er sis. iee wo that having greg in the case makes it all the more interesting. >> let's open up the floor to questions. m going toive up mnd

wiheanu me hohu'e able to be heard. >> i've got areally qck quon rd thelte ci, sohhelt istsut te ca p o the decision that was struck down. the ason i ask this is, in hi law practice -n m ac il it re dlechen monce i g ennve vginia next year as a democrat, at least in the primary, and from a practic moovrsnioweew i ju dtse caxpon eo sese in

if a republican gets elected, i could see that happening, but i just don't see the mority of moats theajorof >>l,eowi a question wants to head towards the mic, that -- >> that sounds like a pretty good guess because the federal government's gng to p0% tospan. yer grnyo d l,nrile buu holato oassume the public, i'm turning down millions of dollars in federal funds to pay for health care for poor people? fel ur y'ngt do i i wd tas a acl ern lo of the states didn't particularly like the expansion that somewhe down the line they're going to s, well, okay, if you're paying 100% of e co, wineta

>>l,'s 1in ly s, a sovrsar ng owo0er d t 10% is a budget bust for us. i think i read in my paper that florida's announced it's going to turn it down. i 'thi i - i carolina as well. k a dsith mo, t'a s t reoto ha m te when -- >> this is a great blue state/red state divide. all the red states say we're going the stand on principle and thbl ses d sand iou whout d. aur] wr,me,f a couple of states optedut, but if it was a patchwork around the states in and out, wouldn'you possiblyeeanenus miioolic le tohet ted ind omin presumably the

states will say -- >> you don't mean old. >> right. old and/or sick. people who needic c. ldpe pblaly ve lr hig ut p plean e inouams ma 2grd y, individuals who make up to 15 grand, so these are authentically poor people even at the 133% level. th plecodout tk ereowo thldmel r. cower -- care. >> but it's hard to iagine that a state is going to turn down that type of money peanently from the gnm itassaor re iny thneha w n't nt it. but it's hard to see five, six, ten years down the line that a single state or two is going to itar satronha

w idmos he lope will decide to opt out of the insurance purchase and pay the tax penalty. you can save yourself thounds ifetsi c bi rawhknd i why not save all that money an use it to have a better life in the mean time? >> well, the only thing, and lamplyal wheye cil/criminal penalties for it, but what do you have at the end of the time? if you tn pay the tax, you've just given it up. so it'll be interesting, i think a v vdquon t wopctyo n thahaic i ieeand0ye d i dav e $2500 in my pocket to go to the

movies, take a vacation, buy an engageme rin someb , 'd erve t inat i k , g ra ouno iot 3 [lghter] i have insurance. >> thank you. in my mind there's an no linatisveyn jicsc itose et n do one or the other. and originalist thinking, abthotu ielield look a s d fft borow y. s wri ian o t l could reconcile, to my mind, tat inconsistency. ex .e happen to have aca po. ri,

tigis oek t rdethra, and what they said and wrote in the context of that era. his beef on lislative history is tt it's not, actually, as inatthe doo aclysetow. yoveth floor, all the committee reports, all the other artifacts of legislative history, they're not at gets signed into law. thlls sedn. thiloi k aneeonenh enf pleorle majority of the supreme court still does have a high regard for legislative history. >> i actually think the two reil.s are perctly copoeat wds kn wheds meant. he also doesn't care what the intentions of the framers were, he wants to know the original

public understanding ofos s heer d kat ry fft rine p f ste xt h ha qioou affirmate action case that's coming up. and i just want to hear a little bit more about it. um, i'd heard th potentially, deonstros' tiheoia ngim u sow rme on yavyouab ic justices might go or which way they might be swayed, i'd be curious to any insights >> ktiob hve. ieaatheit yo rbeatwr the decision in the seattle cases which race was used as a way to sort of balcet ol plas, he ittiofhs

h back om saying schools could not use race at all by justice kennedy who wasn't rea to go ttar. teouno am tean ce uin is situation but not that situation, so it seems pretty clear that there are at least jue edy strong votes and th re ,os t eea mr ms sweseye basically one for one, conservative for conrvative, liberal for liberal. the one that matters was alito alhaak t pe,an atero o fno s otwa sin e'mesoo thk that the affirmative action regime that we're used to may go down. >> next?

histh50 avey b vcahaed or as justice warren's law clerk on that particular opinion. and one of the things that struck meeceny i in s rdiepntn thinti alhaaisis judicially-usable basis for upholdingor drafting leslation,uchss jin iinattiar in his grave at that notion since he thought that fairness was, indeed, the touchstone of all appropriate diin. werthos ve t,stak. carr, did it achieve anything

really? warren wrote that it was the most important decision of his tenure, but i wonder wheer, in factt bet ts ctescaof al oe v e t ictrd by which appropriate legislative districts can be formed. and the other aspect about it is that it seemsmeatro aric re bereer always been sort of put in the trash can. there was a recent new york times article that indicated that racial gregn he icoofmeow ch gern as 1 whanin pcuras school. >> well, the impact of baker v. carr, i think, is very hard to measure, but would guess in the 50 yeain tf leat aroth

st, eche city. theye not dominated by rural interests the way they were before. so myuess is that bakerv. arthnt trydyoamp eaca u s reenepe.cho if people live in the cities, there should be more representatives in the cities and suburbs, not people representing, u know, some leatreen ati ieta saeoin a l ri hao haad g ct >> that seems to be the answer. [laughter] be next question in -- next question? av t fle a lee, tk, sf yoantoeel ee i. thhecayswe didn't see any specific fallout from the narrower interpretation

of the commee clause and the necessary and proper clause. are there any cases on the horizore t ctsl t ptho on d heo nk eycot? ts oouen f of oluere [laughter] so my sense is that theommerce coveabwhr tg,f it is vs tme anetto hin thse on t say, no. the decision itself said that e mandate was novel. that would make you think that l estin laws inte coce se ty. youllsnkha n negrisng to use the vehie of this kind of mandate to be the soul justification, soul commerce clause justification for y la inur iy hisat beri too, and the solicitor

general, sort of the court very much wanted him to give them some sort of liming pip he erlaus alheyhie e me ieaca fft vein e he ians erfrnyg,nd there's really no other law like this. they weren't particularly satisfied, i don't think, with cenltheventieut th was the rly in l t ter was t sdi to a ton of litigation about what new conditions are okay and not -- i think that option. and that had seven votes behind it. atnsahoew f onutl. nderngth t icth i s lesmhecovave de on that. or the celebration, rather: i

would think there be a lotof ti ohe ra s llau t fal oftato l oh exple; raising the drinking age to 21, reducing the speed limit to5, having everyat alcosis t ra rn w i d e' a le o which liberals like and some of which conservatives like. >> one of the things that went unremarked on in the opinn is that justesbr aka inha hngchas a buouw,ugha sofa t wa sos t work. i thought the notion was in the spending clause we're going to governor you, state, this amount of mey for something, an if you ke the monyoa to yon' htoake ne baprplhait hto

al t the states can say no to. if they take the money, they have to -- but the thing tat haisyptiutrgt, ine ou a ngyon'ato p egg jdihe gun is the threat. so if akansas, for example, would say we're reluctant to do this medicaid expansion, take an extra $50 million, iteemed to lo40ll iyo t loitt,ndt essolike fair deal. so it seems to me they've restored the priiple that there has to be deal, that the state gets eitrhoosto t ta the m,ep s ur d >> i'm curious about the case the supreme court heard in february, i think it was, which

coat cbe h let beingth r tai ta iw n ste nte ote that occur in other countries can be adjudicated in the states. just curious on at your opinion was on wherehat desionl mokgd.u er 1lale t amouut s ow some kinds of lawsuits for human rights abuse, and sme courts have said including for human rights abuses committ by on tainast gaiot it quasi-citizens united kind of thing, can you sue for being complicit in human rights cases abroa and oe ic ic anrtar idtutree lkabpoon at t court doing?

so they set the case down for reargument, again, reniscent of citizens united, making the se bger d asngth largueion hehe n sutoue pe.iallion e'ad pe a iested enough to answer the larger question, and that answer may well be, no, no trerritorial application. >> questioisou opepng o cot inec in teaca . o an i guess law students learn early on that you have got to read the whole decision before you kind of decide what the case about and, of urse lawrs kn ttl. onng wnth es csarer g neans a te byome media organizations to try to prevent what happened from happening again? std-upepor outit doing

tep aur] whthhaednddn enanu- [laughter] there's en a lot o talk about going forward and how to make sure that itdoesn't happen again. oconawoo c f i ie taught the re wdeon se xcs,y ut eir nd [laughter] >> well, i mean, all of us who are journalists are trained to know what we're talking about wre wringbobe w to know wh coguthasryy fft,pl decision to be able to read in a couple of minutes and digest. i mean, honestly, if you were sitting in the courtroom, you d totloim re whaed e uorewnrs wabo fouhe thkewod t if youidn't read the

entire southarolina, it's easy -- section, it's esy to sehowatie dbe den reryto is wnmi. b wve s o oolueetils, who when i asked him how was he going to handle this, was he going have someone run the decision out to him,heaid, absoly, t on tayueanp anat wd w fim beuse he's a very smt and careful guy. >> you know what he said the hardest part was? thh cr ndng the opinion, getting gh is c. al a w tic w ema- ev networks when i started they all had a person who was a full-time reporter at the court, and they don't anymore. heknthod k,tbe

tasl. deea bor t people that are out there, though, because it's -- they got themsees in a very bad situation of trying to say we're ing toe on the a lnd repohstyhyo oweyn e ano th ab an snguno fi point is this or that. so that's just not a -- somebody higher up in the organization should ha said, well, let's itoio te oce thci,enet g out and report it. let's not get on the air live and try to beat everybody to be the fastest -- wodieeh ithyoonly part that drl over and over is, first, get it right.

and you, and there's no way a em opndeg to reade page o r ytintbei beou cmmit anything to paper or, i guess now to computer, or s it on the air. >> just for the histical record, does anyonenow who was firsththredl asatread iutt 10:07. >> pretty good. >> now, there is -- there m be some argument abouteconds, b cay we i w thrsere >>nk were first. >> really? >> i do. i do >> i was up in theourtroom spd cue ring it all beg rtuthiy ea cllo

w ilayow isch aociated press, reuters and bloomberg all had it at 10:07. now, we're fightingbout what second in that minute weot it, >>eaneoypis we oanmyit hofbler executive. and so i think that bloomberg d it first. [laughter] >> with well, on that note, we've run a little past 2:00. wiuen,t'm sng scle tou v chmi ea a nea [applause] ..

tok t chi y fariteubje mo of the drugs given our to make them safer but this particular drug is not when they thmail more.e killing floor an >>rlth week, an attorney and law professor and fall of the challenging 2010 health care law said chief justicejoh robertdision o

ldlw olal thfouto deia ec. be uth is an hour and half. >>dano om e tntit am r pilon, the director of tepito's senator constitutional studies, which is int,tpoam hs panelof theprogteow neo h-p die elee em ors obamacare ruling what does it all mean and this panel will be discussing the scope of nstinawes xt wl issin e taofh at er grheres erhe care policy.

like so many who hear the ol latine, to iatain wreck for the administration, we were taken aback by the supreme court's obaril atlast thurs uoldi tocmee cgo none had taken that argument seriously. many still don't. but chief justice roberts juesd ffif ie beer eeonyil , we are here now to dissect this decision unlike as with quo's normal picher deon adothweul

nt a n on h nes uralpate, but with people that share roughly the same views, and we did so because we want to try drlc o l ch anh iw a d let me proceed now to introduce our panel. i'm going to introduce each speaker before h speaks,ar irayn is a ilgiry th pakers because their biographies are extremely long and distinguished. randy barntt is the waterhouse getouilar ri latt i ltna ughtow cna cyber law come partnership and

jurirudence. he's been the visiting professor at the university of pennlvan, nohwesrn ad rv a ho28h feshn nsti ie 'sraunrhestern university and harvard law school. after graduating from harvard, he served as a posecutor in the k coty stateto's in4,abee e s.reouoagee medical cannabis case in gonzalez after successfully are doing it in the ninth circuit. i guess are to read from that that heid notscefully guefermeur thourrda.al fa he co-authored an amicus brief in texas as well. he is the author of restoring the lost constitution come on prto04onitnaion o lty

sturlbrst d law, oxford, 98 and many other books and articles. so, would you pleewlco ndn la >>nku 'saypsu e to. i think i've been here on happier days and on a happier occasions. i've been involved in this case acbfthlws the affordable car tein0y thm eg untionhete atthahl stewart and tod. the only person who has been involved longer than i have in ofel nt theonstutioty nidval adte m lle,idrvho re naie i em 20s the first piece i read that got me thinking about the

constitutional qstions in this case. last week the eisio as l dt y e wacngw to myself. so, i was pretty devastating by the lost and i'm sti devastated by the loss and i'ig s tie ttote gsateu tec d n' wtbe pegh outcome or putting an unrealistically optimistic view othe outcome. in fact was a bad day and was a o ec wa a ay d d desma dnhvwose. aut de been. and i think under circumstances like this come to engage in a kind of extreme do ndl ies suf coiswhsil

mog wefle thhe side a bigger victory than the in fact otained. so that's what i want to emphasize today. in order to explain that, i nt to sugetarew - e entses i e esas sue ttesor three days of oral arguments is because there were too, not one that tomb huge issues on the table in this caee t onca fiwae sf hetoven is trulntou medical care and if the government thus control our medical care, i believe as to althrlthi ot will fundantaly thsalaomein rnntoer el rotiolal emonrese approximating western europe. now, i don't have anything against western europe. i like goi there.

ey h nice ild ad e i od b t oe't tincilnt veeriroica sta sl arci democracy. and if this particular bill was to remain inlaw, then i think that is the iel me. e nde go st.u otete cotualfrgovernment, and in part, that part of the form of government which says the federal government is one of limited and enmetedow thisad bthprinl e uns f r i sue t vde d na iddet ine aline wr concord or the great society. has never denied it. but if the individual mandate, whicis the core of thisbill, icsatey re detecmercluse

thy hae under the commerce clause authority, then the theory by which was going to be upheld were going to th uwhhld esehe anngldbe t epoansell thtition would be a isxcyw9% wihirs clause problems ofr dsdh eychtotir students and i know this becau i've been debating for two years and this is what i hear from e other side and that is essentlly it gives the ngre howtore y aina lend iwn aak oitlw haapdle reet they're let me say what we thought was going to happen. i wasn't surprised necessarily that we lost but i ws suprised

welstc vry siss twewuthonh thinothe sur e on both of these issues. in other words, in order to ha ai noucm our challenge to aussutwe o lettdvl mandate that would mean we would have to lose our commerce clause theory and therefore would lose both our challenge to acanr rt cotu w w h th constitution. everybody assumed that this is what was going to happen one way or the otherincludi the of the side. even allof hepoestha tisti ne t autty t f hmsaol justified under a saving

construction of the statute under the tax power but unconstitutional under the commerce ause. evere fthm tiascti dheme pr p iswht wa taboha w decided last week. will was decided last week is that there are five votes for the proposition to the sreme thheadws olwhw tt teisther e ted te weha t iidu insurance mandate that eeeds congress' is limited powers of commerce clause thatif laeom city h santic tetemean do not reach inactivity. it doesn't reach people that are not doing anything. it doesn't give the cogress to defeat to epow thn ts teco

ths hpition than 99.9% of the legal exprts say was a frivolous position. their position thatcongress ha naalprbesn thsition commanded at best for votes. so, if we are told that the meetg of the constitutio is not to give regional meeng o sahecut nscut cotuon that under those rules of engagement we have five votes for the proposition that both the government is of the enumerted werstome aus ri ie w mi rmy on exedctmnat ns ttob j because the alternative would have been so much worse.

and i don't think it is spinning haedsaathwa think it sutti pp. me tanr oua iwr in a big battle and you lost the big battle coming in was big one but during the course you gain some terrn atthn fte afvin otth waulyoenurend why because you lost the battle? nobody would do that and that's the situation we found ourselves. we've actuly med the consti l n e b a iveeio au afete iv jce snn o explicit form that will professors that teach could say of course that's a reasonable position reaboon ni't wasn't even a

e aaig th'sre a w e e o rhe? this is why i think this is important. what happens thi week. the way it happenss important ladaisngtaio bee 'st' ur . dohaetinisgard to talk about it if david doesn't say everying about that. i will mentionin the fall of thaspatwhy that wasn't a o sw e e rohe? the wathis happened is highly significant. imagine that we are actuay in 35 i1935he em urri dthiim wh cg of hti a sth public pressure and the democratic administration t new deal was

then ray authorized a different version is reauthorize and it's anrswh ahe thsv. teswe ic t could be at this point in 1935 only we, our position is the position that coul covay ee at. limetaca epe pe engaged in public affairs that all these things. the american pople have been following the case before they were final. the american peopl hav been bemderdeont by hs m ek awanjotyughe affordable ce act was unconstitutional and a majity thought the supreme court would find it unotittion, an whapatw.te iftd whap?

lldn'he meaning of the constitution changes. but the meaning of the constitutional law, the constitutional law changes with suecotosn w oe ecu itanhee th 'swahnth reint naactd president nominates, an elected senate confirms the next justice. that's wt they always do. then the question is what re wf dtcod ilens hs h o tng were fighting on, obamacare, o preserve constitution if i had to choose if you put agun to my head and mandated i h to dort.onlx igs if te ae thw . 'sat i would have chosen. i think i would have chosen the constution becauset is within the power of the

ectorate to reverse obamare 's g t ean 'soagantetis meg c e on v econdu t.e g so t ut would be next to impossible to reverse an adverse ruling about the constitution that we were pecting if e ost on ame olde rnse ls ped t whe netefot te tup cr not enough. five justices are not enough. you need more because if you only have five, sebybas. bt'songb at me ants g about electing a president who commits himself to nomiting people for the supreme court that both believe in the writtenonstiti ad coe ud e

nstiwe pressure is brought to bear upon them. in other words, who have a judicial character as well s say cicmi i whas lsoe t if s ifmer opre so upseor so offended by what happened last week, and time will tell if that is true or is otpeif tis etg th tuo itete natn as e ol tag the threshold of whathe law school calls a constitutional moment in which from noon the justices are going to be selected becauseyi i bee h haac rsiturt he ra if thhanswllo back upon this day, this week as the turning point there was ann es necessaryocrratapn ipdg

mistic. i'm not predicting it any way the case was going to come out and i'm not predicting the way that the election is going t and i'not rdct ht wo dsi aen tsai heion perui t constitutional moment and the constitutional moment has been sown by the legal challenge and the ruling this week and the way the rulingws as fo nd'ssso tedvef t vas liar to be completely pessimistic and have nothing but the doom and li pe of what happens or what is 'se itad wnd re ht th ee takes place that

this in fact is our 1935 and 19at's coming is going to be u [aus thank you, randy for that upbeat reaction to the opinion. goohv ans t. retor h tax issue from david rivkin, jr.. david is a member of the beaker hofstadter's litigation gr, e-tal dieal 'sel do onta. s esiepre constitutional, administrative and international law litigation. he's been involved in numero he esh 6

athaalnghe onutlifore teatse counsel in the district court and in the court of appeals in the 11th circuit in tha litigation. he aorpsed reub ro be t fo heugv rnnaurue r number of years on a wide range of issues involving international humanitarian law iviatl rirall of the wr. agt te former secretary of defense donald rumsfeld. from 2004 through 2007 he served as an expert member of e unto somio e ot aroio hethcif uous emnd si including 1981 the u.s. legal

proceedings and will make him an award for the best maritime ir rcli84d he onale he ifwrra mmryike all of our speakers for today. you are bound to have seen his articles in "the wall street journal," "the washington post," "the newortimea wh d gaduo orwnivtyreh d m. viafs n aa uafoumavety law school please welcome the it rivkin. yod nk feng hld a tompoil des th 1980's. i a torn about how i feel about thecs tth omrc use in

oplaioof the case are superbot only in terms of the outcome, but in terms of restoring and co stueaon fention oe weisioanhevent s ri aato ovinat i ouadd it's not only the big picture of the language in touch the feetof hichte urjoy reed ryt sut overwoya ndl it builds upon where justice kennedy is probably one of the most rousing dicss stnd it dialeriop twthura parn own ts. nnb happier. it's particularly good on the

clause as well as those of you onw sdi thek four corners of the case not just fundamental principles the necessary and proper claus hat eiioi n ad, nstial triumph. what bothers me and why i'm not as cheerful as they would have liked it's not just the loss and coitn rs thpa ci sinn n kiow a.e a babt health care. this case was about individual liberty and e structure of the constituonnd the fatof bare nol ha endsilyory at tlege i

er a oerle es idont think any of us on this panel would disagree with bee e rbrre is seriousn inaticf federal government to exercise normally the unlimitedpower but lunar defeat limited powers that each animatepower has to have mngi iia nc thi he iondsof hoare deutsch to -- are to have made thseatgrc pln thaifnl ciheperer t mmbys ohe ssproper clause it cannot do so on the basis of all of the article 1 powers. so on one level, the opinion

buenharem ih etxer iai s t nco tngt w ngeme discussions including an excellent piece in today's wall street journal editorial which recommended your attention and there e seral oble but exseoutahas ietrerwt a e ecot the law. he did not interpreter the language the congrs ente erotd uw an hesaereereo pass the law to figure not what's in it. it took the supreme court to write the law to uphold and clearlrewriting the law is o ifbyonutl er t tt std oie ere ar worinch

tvet from oblivion. he wrote the law andthat is my honest opinion one could disagree with that and that clearly not auiln 'suftunaut'sd ju a es before. what tubles me far more is the way that he can see the taxg pocioweldes it kindfnra ththanort re y htwed i said a few minutes ago and meaningful judiciy enforcement for ea enumerated power but they are n the same for frs fron aboutr taxes at the front end of the netingp tgvenlutioncnig

nfatdit a obwat framers wanted to put some serious restrictions on the taxing power and the power he ohed m ot ieae co fyu u the price on the excise tax people woul buy the butth ashee asastge poitrammeled on individual liberty t was in that dangerous. abposw iu hnby t poota pooad on the

individuals either all of them are some of them because they exist,hich to those of us that whdiomtwthdealing ith te ne cr er ps es c eyte icin r tham understood that or they came up with a couple of ways of disciplining ditg. ethson h ary bsurt ohaedote nogence maybe twice in history, but the major proposition is tat while on a sturwetewaasis the tax is the ogn ag w a population and its deutsch presentation in the house, therefore the idea was at the largest state would find it iclyifbese smcttouo

e u ageate renta enmin al a the oiginal states you have to tell constituents that it seem like mo.s iyi uebn opinion concluded that this is not a direct tax, this isn't a species of iet an e dnoiutt io cos ioreuse isatax that has triggered by having an income but in the sense that the vast majority of taayerinteme e rl ie t tf tabumau bu thime tax is measured.

it's in the nature of he tax dit's no n a ono bhewpohe ha so gasoline or taxes on coffee o tea or the commodity would have taxes o transactionsn factth inipse necita ely hse foe commerce clause activities. can we as an experiment in vision for a sond that ou abe f in ry nnaxsoodr leyod , rel be fined a would be an excise tax on broccoli but can you tax somebody for a absence of brcoli e tiontts s ci pa hst

w, effotl msgeouheisse why it's not a direct tax, the chief justice votes from an early opinion on the cae and arl itn axs poon ndvilth re te ica. i think in his opinion that circumstance they are talking about is a profession undr i wohaobapord,te t what's to another experiment. let's license the pieces and see first the taxes imposed on all seitldbeooomen and thnall me ybatgn ti ditxn ve out having to worry about apportionment. it doesn't workit is badly

prm h es ny opstes einhepoon of coursfrom the taxation from the early cases he basically iseu it k, i nestantta 'redbes e wee ieouheeulry pa, hoe tmon eit at that. there's an elegant pig bit towards the bottom of the page in the sense that it's drafted elegantly. a atla,fyu can have a tax with substantial regulatory impact coming in to careot all about th regulatory acthat ff e coislong t,r ng av thoucshtemeerubofac

the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause can accomplish. it's very easy to stipulate how that caapn sd fm ir atou h zefr awh pey and while it's interesting justice roberts in the effort to display the outcome talks about his own factors which utray peas aimg or d hm amitnedst direcmandate but with respect this is wrong. there's some experts of human behavior, ladies and gentlemen that cannot betd 9 ma es ta ths lu n frece eendatg the use of broccoli and penalizing yofor not doing thato $500, and

xih rti a ulscnofee eet mandates. now before i stop let me try to defend a little bit perhaps coming into this is something that several of us havpinted jue ev ylie isefchtax, he is providing the accountability they haven't seen fit to prode will always argue that you could acttet opc cr haxedth ane politicians disclaim resolutely including president obama, speaker pelosi, senate majority leader harry reid.ey ax bee hi olca

connotations he is making actically maybe that is the reason for the optimism and much re different goal to exerce them in the igpwha uldstrhecotual tuuranouber ic frklcoder that as possibility for that used to the covers a few hours. if you notice how the administration so bn leinsp asl he aenny pelosi and the white house staff and many other folks their point ty whv s ngru avmeg hi h x thtion rp o penalty for political purpes. the justice was planning to use itsae ang

suedndf thndtaobis that even if he is right, again, the whole thrust of the effort ju ictas.to say it cannot be oord ho the seoreurme ort a ptma n reed to the impermissible the of the sizing talking about a paicular case where the po ngo stourt ounded one pect enedhjdciute aynroaton the garcia case and you cannot have the fundamental part of the meanatwhe andhe poical itheprel thealahis limiting factors the amounof

bolivia is reasonable is tre ancosutl asiwu ancasorbyte irs. if that's all it takes putting the internal revenue code you can channel al mandates for the tern eee con aihent h me i ons ise a tax it promotes things in life, the $500 penalty for not buying broccoli is no diferent than a nrfopon tci did stuff ilya is going to talk about the destruction taxing power that ely nt nfrlemi

ct n roe rty eaisb f r means. let me just finish by giving you one last horrible scenario. nothing would prevent the government it woue even ngn ctohe thventeeeyb 99de e 5 ovnsth tax code if you buy this you get a tax credit. thhaor iiloro heertalbd retompctthtt ovions and say that's the general policing power? thatisdificult. they may neve t e thrty thd rp o hpos ren ch se opinion. thank u. [applause]

tha you d nhaatve t ve meyeve atbuus u a wecooht ate? >> as a matter of quality, not yet. weoinoraageou. thahp,heni owthntua inutand is the editor-in-chief at the cato supreme court review, which will be outnjust another two and a lfth fit l ths g b a userw n rtdeonat ame down. before joining cato, ilya was especially advisor to the multinational forcin iraq, le h rce teiococi titltg.

he like the other two guests is a prolific writernd has contributed to a variety of ad puan ofonli g ud"talreurrd jaw pu py,a.es ds forth. he is a guest on tv shows often times in putting theb sendmehea uaf rn tonsc o economics where he got a master's degree and the universi of chico law school after which he clerked for a apsfrthircu.r o se melsaro [applause] >> thank you vry much. it's an honor to be on this

pa. das teun dialbuhee e progenitors and they call randy the intellectual godfather of this litigation. it's been an th t rk sngefu icad ngdot len vae ales r restore the constitution. the greatest honor i have during this whole thing was being randy's lawyer in thesesha henste onil h fb olhoancaof thcord joining cato on a number of briefs that i was privileged to sign off on. isid orvictfoa

feerm and the loss as i told my blog yesterday we won everything but the case. never did i ink that i could riersntm ag th ithce ause come in properlause an spending. i filed for briefs that the mariidractt and there s h hihobif il t arwadsihe taxing power. i was there on the court on ur. assrki cnt wrong immediately. i think all of us did as we heard chief justice rober go on so sonlouhy

e atami e thndicdi retecerh t it's not a general license from cradle to grave simply because he will predictably engage in evf niid mtear transactions. rmschsi c e l roapo anrmitosor fee. those could have come from any of the briefs or randy's writings were david's oral arguments below. that isnrdi eaa ra. itht nne e veads xn i wasn't quite sure what was going on. seof hjtiopn asion pal stttu emde ct dcn shi

less than wales as a in the famous film a man for all seasons. you perjureourself and your gal tt ohiee thtas hhaecaheoyal. jue avth court for and this might jeopardize my future convertibilitfor something, but i dn't think -- aly.an t meoe tniacal pp tko ,a ihe obigner, ap h biggest may turn out to be the biggest thing the ase is remembered for. for th first time in modern ridee, tise untion fal thcnspeg power. the question the court asks, and this goes back decades to the new deal er is whether the financialinducements feed

ng i oto tpoatcrsu ths ur ederal system the federal government cannot command mandates and their officials to enct andnforce delw e t pthsce a a7 nt se you cannot commandeers state officials to federal bidding. randy transform e that idea individuecase e tehe ent ee r jithat a du teoto sm bidding but nevertheless, on this medicaid part, what the court held in geeing wihhe e'gus, tt's vied citn e atge medicaid funding to read all federal funding that went to the

states. the congress sad all the funding would be lost ifey reti tne anma esi obar.rrede the court said that congress can offer the sttes grants and require the states to comply thgrtsut ttesngsatahedo taen ce thusthccb change in medicaid in which they are inextricably connected and intertwined or lose all medicaid funding efctivybte aah ernrkwne nde xiowe waevuts agreed that it was unconstutional for the medicaid funding on the new conditions. sen justces, nldin iceywh prsl s ot aond n ic ece l o

fel oer d justice elena kagan laugh i don't know if you remember this but she said the states are being offered a boatload of money. wes fouh aa prtt ol untitutional. but again, the remedy after finding this on nstitutionality by five justices at this pte r aptero o n h wihevai hat no effectively, again, relenting this provision rather than making it an all or nothing is voluntary. at cete nfu ac h ewxpanio a guonsoiawh e un tcaeethe status in place before obmacare and

medicaid. it seems to throw off the hole tie ii is hard in this effort with the analysis. we've all been alking about veral building with respect to the individuala exnsanenlii vealt laue for justice dissent calls, what do they call it? thwaclths medicaid expansion that says it's part of this provision is found unconstitutional, the rest can stand. s in t t res wastandg ee arre hn ang. cio son

power to pay the debt and provide the general welfare of the united stat article 81 clause. e t sa t oiio venizeons o thwe gfdra ndd ich tonthe sttstang rtacutes ult quire them to take however because the spending clauseegislation is also much th san aacheoftr repsin o the supreme court review vanderbilt law professor. with congress they're adon aawyeoca private law but here the state signed up for one type program medicaid forced into another, the last state to join

cly wpaee troronthha kiare of nearly pregnant women and dependent children, the elderly and the disabled come here we mve poy ie os orqmre so ve the spending clause legislation, the majority through chief cstis roberts said rests on what might frm nhd he thfis h multiple sovereign working to preserve and protect liberty. when a pressure turnsnto compsionthe si int 19ast eduttbng s qd het gag ce self dakoa

conditioning a little bit of highway funds on raising the drinking age the legislation runs contrary tohe stem e ra am esginre or oru tt soa,gryth appropriate conditions to the federal tax and spend programs to control the use of the funds. it cold ozm an st oinhr f t ano rthad ar aiaiden coress has chosen is much more than a relatively mild encouragement, it is a gun to ed thtircic ry tovu t what is the test for this revolutionary effectively? most recedent setting parts of the opinion of theeid

pan dilaritie eth nda aof e tsi grpling with the next time from health care will environmental or social security or other thuroe thindueurat sthaiimca cptefra onditions in exchange for fedral funds and there are four factors essentially. the size of the grant can be withdrawn somhing perps moe penth ihy. ndin n ied conditions meet the law in reality new program or simply a modifition of the old one. then with the statesre reedhexg unr lyo aou annawih ated its oe t usodsor ta the

form of threa to terminate other independent grants as a means of pressuring the states at cy has e lnerg ob wthheo olyp y j yhean e coeron bthe ending clause and this is beyond whatever that line is and these are the chngelinesluth thi lee again, once obamacare policy issues in thenext panel willsc v inmsud a th c ingt g ohrg t ca wasfiled a few weeks ago these are what we are going to obar supheah hia

l falcandt onthestio reitdyfathe inflows i'm not sure how many legs the taxing power political decision will have, but certainly on thecommerce in thasalnlt np r arfhe di pninsu hat really was baking new ground and then posing new limits on federal power which is what the chale is all about. thankou. we are ing o ave a little discussion among the panelis before return to questions from e audience. but we begin by i ad te ht h dio omhettga brake on

thecommerce clause no longer enge im hud to compe peoe to ga w teas never engaged in y such a command as this. se, e e dt lal thm clause ower that has followed the constitutional revolution the you spoke about. so sn't this from that viytaatysmal acicith whom you so often does deutsch because they would have had thefullommerce sesen tth tu i h ct

rlsnhach dena? >> that is all we were going to win if we won the case. i've said this for woyears. coss ngoe or wie w b be iga a ona ath been passewould ever be effective and that is the affordable care act so that is all we were ever going to get if we won the case, and we g . geh yoar thss t wa g to get i always couple that point with another point and that is with the case would and for symbolically was an affirmatn ofth lte wef ow g e rmn the general principle and e also got the specifics. so that is all we were ever going to get if we lost the case

but i want to talk a little it abou xera se thdsi.ythi iwn poou pentyot why -- so my position all day has been it could be worse. a lot worse. whwelaomis so-calledoimis imete t controlled substances act which our commerce clause regulations enforced under the tax power, d enldfe? atldpeh d he eitenif ll ocaat ifacly could turn into e tax law as opposed t the commerce power regulations, we would fundamental le t py hsun a e ietari dtion wn' aeran tcbee oub

nsla w ht pay a find the would be a difference between paying the fine and going to jail and taking the adult males away from thr familynd deyi the coitnte to de g. reorea whe tax power can be less dangerous than the commerce power. i didn't always believed that for the first year of the litigation and i have pubshed thviewhatea v a hnks t amlslle t bee er power because would be unlimited. what basically allow the congress the plenary police power to pohibit anything as longth limme fi wobe or dge a buiwuy convinced otherwise and i attended one of the oral arguments and judge kavanagh in the d.c. circuit said that this is actually the commerce clae ismore

erbee anuiila a tytv woi n tsete x power is less dangerous. second we know from the political standpoint taxes are toxic which is why the jue os udn i isn'tn in hiidha g thida ifficult line to draw what he basically said look, if the penalty gets too i'm ng k atht be unreasonable. lemao edsit ti oth only part of the decision that is really bad for us which is the tax power decision. what kind of decision was this? itooon tolaesayahi s oldisn t 't ea sn.

the merits all on or side this was a political decision on the i t o o havwinge anw d ths at news reported yesterday and that is chief justice roberts changed his vote afr conference. we walked out thinki thate n. tu dttat w weketnkwh friske t coenotth d some time, weeks after that, beginning in the next week the president and thenited states began to attackths er hhel me on. arnt, e 'tw w l enthd e ni politics into the supreme court because the case had alreadybeen submitted. and then i was amstrup. evermajodemoatic ogivope,n

r ut ayajol te teytt intha should b decided in search of the book by chief justice roberts in particular should ru a certain way to protect legitimacy of flspottinynatinin t cha pocso jeed d we find out that, which we didn't know, that whad won the case of conference and we lost the case leader after the prsureas bught r whdfe t is rubmrsth ue than e undone but what is the presidential suite of the decision? how binding it on the future judges? how mu rsctis t obedtetaveer wi anin of political change in the political culture,

the tax par of is decision is done anb l mian ev prendwo e chge in the politicalculture and let me close with something i said before. if we don't change our political culture, if it doesn't hange but asrsut f i dis d rlt t vely pltil e liteobaif atet en iconcnumn of broccoli will be the least of our problems. and so, i wouldn't be all that concned abo that. fi h rst t weesepltal lttiisnoe t tekl npoa ieterd progress in limiting the poer of the av?eral government. thasss whih

coce e prve i think that's one of our pots of the chief justice made in trying to distinguish between theto bae hehi as in ed f the administration's view of the unnecessary commerce clause of course i prefer th opinion we cae dy ilde kee errt onoin t b th leaving aside a few aspects of human behavior criminalization vespn vpblf udt dlaha ndmnied

.. >> rising debt, declining tax collections, you know, not enough job creation. there's an irresistible tetatiorlil itupfory ernd. ab eceredc need to provide a cross-subsidy that could not have been done for the straightforward use of a taxing power a talk about resity and tk aboerl de,ieenen inceerch mte

ulve theming to the politicians. so -- very teting to the politicians. so the danger was real, and i believe the danger has been erte l arth mmla thcunc- us e tag t d ag cross-subsidies -- the same danger exists relative to the taxing power. again, let's all stipulate it's re modest, it'sot ut ts lre. d c msw yineng osou a fia thstiohiy, d fos on the panel he they certainly are, it's interesting. if you look at how the federal vernment has tried over a period of more than cur er pe r,ts teeddind le benax ag pse to cite cases, but it really wnt back and forth and back and forth. if you look at the early 19th

century whe, w, ng cn t un tomeu enuurmor , injecting interstate commerce goods manufactured with child labor, only in few years to come back and was struck down ineweaheey ttoly to come bk i a soinaterpe hon b rt tisth iot a farfetched proposition. but again, on balance, it is better than we could have been, arsn hohaainly ison h o >>niowthdi e. yaeur tte must have a real choice, and if sanction is that they will lose all of the medicaid funds they currently have, tt isol oiec oepu th l hocha cehe il h

usf sean that unless they expand their medicaid rolls vastly, then their taxpayers -- aney thtaer a g t ve ttitrin gey h benefits. and so how realistic is it to say that they now have a real choice? >> um, well, this is the problem thri atun r av i ry tgu wher end cove it's still unfortunate that all those states' citizens will still be or,at me ers wll wit inyt i tuf onrth getting anything in return on the little bit more that will now be assessed. so, ah, it's not a complete pes -eh dbue,ut pap

stihasiion of what this was before he rewrote it. >> all right. 're going to now turn to the audience. please, wait until the cropne gs u. enrsan linyoy hfo fiepaauce and our audience doing this through cato. okay. let'start with this gentleman ght here. cacher aia? iependent. it's said now at a t and that taxes have to originaten apntoratn na. cotualll? >> t it. o d, d. he isn't.

this is one technical problem that congreshas mastered. the way itsuallywos is you ve aredill t usatstry, d 'sllfts t ne d itsaitth a tel. atit a senate bill. so i'm afraid that would not be -- that's not what the framers intended, but i'm afrai that that pactice has been going on for a long, lngim itlddiul t leitth b isi t d isi i t dere atidaid. there is the origination in the constitution that says revenue bills must originate in the house. that's what you've read in your cotu. biha onainus t oevl, amend it with a bill that -- >> [inaudible] abit wdothg theyt.

ifou wene r iheonutat gwa that's the problem. that's why you need courts who will enforce the constitution. all the constitution, including the parts that, you kn, they ma not like. thas hele t we he o mof t tioneaen stclghipa o themarir here. >> jim duhal,no affiliation. this is sort of a question about mrvkinio asso res wndhar rt iaxdeon said that it could be upheld as a tax only if there was a realistic choi between either paying or quons, is in fact that provision, language to that

effect in thopinion and, second, wouldn't that suggest that ifhex eedor eqng oev c c alth ct of doing, that there's no be realistic option. you would always do it instead of pay it so that, you know, you veh.avoid the tax i itet ts erut iri tormahe s t indicating that for vast majority of activities that a governme may seek to compel, there's no dferee beee a nealf $ aax $. ts hu bgs d do aof betrayal, acts of dishonesty, but mostly -- to be fair to the ief, he is talking aut the choi in dreocal x. tngut's

prdiifl, t s -- the essence of a mandate under the commerce clause is somehow it is inherelypulse ounday at b th cul i ho yzn eteh you're being asked to do. and in that context there's no -- picking up onhe point that randy made -- yes, in t ex oruws e' beinsot. sotopn isldat p a fine. but that's a very narrow sliver of human behavior. in most instances the tax nais mpue, mpng pti t atckyna ouabteigit ag ond it's not -- it really does not work. now, again, what he is trying to say there is there can be some

circumstances where ti sgh a e foam ial ito strip away all your wealth, clearly it would bepunitive. but these are, frankly, situations that would never arise. >>erysimp, bec t tho tnirtnse 'sl. >>nkoe my name's stephen richer, i'm with the washington legal foundation, and i'm also a disciple of ilyaha's,o 's ire toli a ot aha wle abatlo" i was wondering if you think the commerce clause language in this opinion is strong enough to stt looking at other past opinions and whether we can art inrerear ci b ee hataloer

i'tnko at on t i t iis far and no farther. the other side wanted everything. that is, there are no lines. our position was as far as ng hondoth anhand h inthsat, t indotes t and we didn't get what wasn't actually at issue here. >> i will say one technical thing about that, that that ingirgti a ray ofig. ncncrtdit al teefus rulings that the preenlightenment court ruled uphold economic liberty and so forth. an inochth- uw,s llut ne atharoe but lockner was merely one of these bad cases that, unfortunately, that is an improvement. >> neil?

yerighhe cl n. ratidy language you got. [laughter] as all of you know very well, our conservative friends have elevated theoncepts of restraint and deference to the chjue rts ch toss aet inonedau o lles pho sute it inbum -- isn't it income bent upon us to make sure the people understand what a disaster this s for the nstio eyl resechto hao th o limited government should ever put on a robe again? >> i misnamed you when you were yolfn, and you dn'tnuc atlaeero ste ic ad enmend h ed es tgoohevery

first principles of the matter and who would like to take it on? >> can i take -- i'm familiar with ij'shinking, d nglas th llwoouo qufry, m ino thia eh,onuy e leis not deference. the problem is that there is nothing to defer to. polica bhe ngr to two denco ,ar. er ithnt yo ,acnghete law for a living. i wish i could do nothing but constitutional law, but that's not the realit of private practice. then congress provides rticartor vcl atan rpd ri vtyfys ynoor ssle, plausible interpretationaves it. you uphold it on that basis. you don't try to hold bes ral e d t prede

lilncthou in oonutl abgiivros ey cne meet. t that has nothg to do with deference. this is the writing to have law. the problem with pushing for thou eoveull sithho nstiyoiv others that legislate from the bench. and, oh -- and if you're looking at it purely from a standpoint of, again, i understand wt u'omom ouog bu yooit f a standpoint of social conservative who's looking at a variety of exercises of state police power that are entirely ise,nguted omertihaul olemeiv rptif ll ghhehand so is, it's hard for me to

accept the notion that the less deferentials, then a review would beunifmlyood ross dohakeen nthdi ong ma w hffce s lft all and perhaps randy would care to respond to what was just said. >> i just want to agree with what clark said. i mean, this decisiois the frt of rs bl erveubnjual mion reicestse nominating justices for 20, 30 years, um, and this is the decision you got as a result of juesa bpitices tha wa whak tdeon ictowa at ieste robts articulated all the right lines that we've been advocatg. couldn't have written it bter myself. and en h rran feewng

at pocat's thactual technical phrase is he gave it a saving construction. a saving construction means it's not the matchal reading, it's a different reading that is a cova rng etuan ghensti. th t doctrine he invoked. but that's -- this is the fruit of that kind of judicial mition, and that's wt an. um atoe anthhees w nt. t gentleman right here. >> hi. potics.c.urry with nbc ofesr. is bo apo es, yoidth ndisor t wouldn't it be more accurate to say it's the core of the legal

challenge to the law? because if you think about limid government whic is, ma of uup, tda thl cct ltan taxes, th's a small part of the overall impact on the public. by t time itll s wiol tme auc heen, athou deng minimum essential benefits, etc. the law's much, much bigger. is it really the core of the law? of t i'towt iwas eo itwh i wyi ieehu.yit, wimthnlt lahean medicaid part thawe had a legal shot at. for example, the health insurance, the health insurance mpy regulations wecouldn't go after because there's a 14 setys su l erndere, 'sercoce ce.

e dno rat cotutionally-vulnerable part that funded the rest of it. so i don't want really disagree with how you characterized it. waor mop,astlema right here. mna is steve hank, and i have no affiliaon. i want today ask y a question -- wanted to ask you a question about this issu of ve a lt thouth a re tctyou megcoli at the judge said in terms of this being a tax, and that is to me it seems like taxis sly ra rue sthg angassh t os ig tt i might have dual purposes to be a penalty and a tax, it does seem

that if it raise renue it's >>he diticsis isea t wimposed for the purpose of raising revenue. all penalty, all fines raise revenuey definition. sofatectyth ane emuresal ceharoti na is a monetary exaction as a result of you breaching some duty of requirement, which, of course, is whats s. ree tf in re dveom nayre wot e cl a tvi o eoreect >> but wasn't it -- [inaudible] not according to the law. not according to the statute. wos updo a fact, ifhe ate d k,reld o nu rdbee yo

dbu irad uld be a zero take. so if that we were, were a necessary condition for a tax, it wouldn't be tax. is wan right ie rithen t t. >>d cooke, i with the women's republican club, and i'm responsible for political education. styaty, o ek acotarm eth shont"icd let's not underestimate john roberts. he's a brilliant lawyer. chghrs hayeryone ee is ppss poca ve hrt perhaps it was political move in our favor, well thought out, with the purposefathe

ev d ie omn . thdon't he?e >> let's assume that you're right. let's assume that you're -- i don't agree that you're right, by the way, i think -- >> [audible] i kw. bui acalhit a of uln, art us iiss eit tou a tme but let's assume that you're right. that's an illegitimate basis on which to make a constitutional ruling. everything you said is a politica consideratio ye t,t m t th teawhan s poca bseth t no know that the vote was changed after political presse was brought to bear, and this is one of the best things you can say about it. it was political decision, but it aaroca th sslema si nd t'sir busll ong the supporters of the

legislation warped t court against being political meaning agnst having five votes to stri it wnau rl atwojueepca tig. deatppedti never even in play. the more interesting point, though, lated directly to your estion is if it was a lil uvor thdiioch tte hatiehecot w level of wizardry that john roberts has, what ishat? it's some variation of sing the cou, savingts inithar, wve w in tou tohtot tht t? me reason we care about the court being, having a high, unbesmirched, independent reputation and being in r nottto

watscis ee reteec the premier countermajoritarian part of our constitutional system and will often have toakpo ifsn'e ic i tagwhhaul >> i iy upheit branch? >> right. and one more point. i know what you're talking about, and i can put it no better than today's "wall street journal" editoriuts whi inceheif ydi idacun,'s t tun where you exchange the political lifeline to the obama administration in exchange for unambiguous, no ckingeama nsti atee. e awod pon opn on b, ngern steroids, that is capable of abuse.

that's not a brilliant chess master move to me. that's a very ambiguous me, or itou w - nale anra, eplho lkbotveeae in 'sg,ser s, you need to understand the case law. they don't understand what the roberts court has done to the taxing power. >> i just, iust want tdd thbee ry oert o ous i tyoin t retiouw re justices behaved here. i think that the four judges who were the liberal side of the court were decided this caseut of pinciple. dieeat9%fl th aatl pem aun citn. th arpl position, and they were voting out of principle. and enthis i think -- and then i think we have to recognize to sort of temper what i said about puanic nne fost we

whlt bye justice roberts, they deserve an awful lot of credit for at, they deserve credit for the opinion ey wrote, for the fact that they refusedo mention t iestspith in ato i't t atve dor red io t existence of the chief justice's deciding opinion. they onlyttacked or criticized the dissenting, teral >> tert' thaselatatt t h odeey ded. tass so i do think we have to be realistic about where our attention is drawn and where it is not drawn. it is not a pox oeverody's us eyt. tbe vcaitin fu wve t ston our justices who have the courage to enforce the constitution even when the pressure's applied to them.

and at least ur of tsest >> cee r's a esbee as a e nt aur] r tsst question before we break. >> i wonder -- it's roger rehm, fund for american studies. do you see a path in the future hage pothhertcrd? el t w--o i ili asking what do i think about the quality of the cancer treatments that have been devised. in order to be able to challenge itre has toe tu po p.h ner op w,opin would change in november and we will not have this problem, but randy's also right. there's certainly anatica opn t it v erta gh , t f tth

toanhiin g k w can challenge it. how likely we are to succeed very much depends upon the mpiof ouhe ct it pbl sain aeinhe erla wn lulak t o case law as existed before. put it this way, this opinion does not help us challenge the use of taxing power. it's a pblem. it's not ansunt ob b d'te h. we g tke a -me bk. sehet exactly 15 minutes after so we can get the next program going for c-span. there are restrooms on the lower level and on the second floor as ms. an nele [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> coming up a little bit ter this morning heonsp 2 onacofe asseatl ucnocon al er. atched s

11:30. it's running a little bit later well, we understand, but we'll have live covage of it when gets stcal d there -s. asefonh tv drito n er c missouri. saturday at noon eastern literary life with booktv on c-span2. former senator and missouri first ladyean cha o lye de rn mon om b "aco ." achll a si cacvi list from ancient mesopotamia to the university of missouri's special collections. the stories behind eight miaturylnay tvndnmen hry ca tod re america. >> a former warden takes you through the historic missouri state penitentiary. also walk back through histor in the hls of thessou

co clxeeor order esosme. this weekend fro jefferson city, saturday at noon and sunday at 5 ian on c-span -- 5 >>imni ddcanspan2 and okst yrdn isrlntny fed eatofeo o bays bank. this is about half an hour. >> order. questions to the prime minister. fionaon timb o m >>nk, ser .pr, heol house will wish to join me in paying tribute to the three british servicemen killed in gumaigodk e. leonard thomas of the corps of

signals. we send our heartfelt condolences to the families of the servicen kill inside t thilev bgo r nn. mng inth stlles hean aio tin house, i shall have further such meetings today. >> i am sure the whole house willwaosoe el thmeierars en opeo ll es fy ouyofewst ieisek mr. speaker, food prices rose 4.6%etween march last year and this year. dend w meheec a t usats he doing about food inflation? >> first of all, can i join the honorable lady in what she said about the tornado aircraft acdet r frs,ild th

llesthol e umcellem cen, iar a susinnt the investigation is ongoing, and more details will be released by the raf in due course. but it's a remder of the sks thaturerrsle onhey'nti rv bhe 'r dengalai r fiof ai would make the point that inflation is now palling in -- falling in our cotry which is extremely good news. in tsoofln, i viy lu v t ouhosp oar r bt, y keep inflation down is to have a responsible monetary policy whichs wh we have in our country. [cs apseichasme >> mr. speaker, would my right

honorable friend agree with me bafiiestst these ri re ten itaof thny reforms must not damage such a brilliant asset for our country? >> well, i think my honorable iend doese an rt wego go bo to tui, b dg residmb who ran the cbi very successfully for year, who carried out an investigation for the party opposite w i rpectre al sclns thsed ug t g tae d,t it mildly b a serious mistake. the economy cannot recover in e absence of stablanking em. sh ln hexp,t >> ser i j

prime minister in paying tribute to guardsmen din str orcans. r tsou their families and friends. i also join the prime minister in the remarks he made about the incident at r. mr. speaker, the bankin sal tasek rle eaheisin ucollins s tfhe sal in the banking system and a continued multimillion bonus merry go round. coenhadgtlore inquiry? >> first of all, on the substance of the issue, there is no disagreement between us.

this banking scandal is appalling. honersayvedigry,at te rndll ill vin it people, people want to know that crime in our banks, crime in our financial services will be pursd and punished like crimes wesei hcobl anpict te non my view the most important thing about an inquiry is that it's swift and decisive. set up as fast as possible,et g aole post ass anend ater th w f pc rlntinyaer than a jge-led inquiry. i want us to legislate on this starting next year. >> eild. r.aki d ustan crnut d,r nc athhe iry

b tdut r t narrow, focusing solely on the problem of libor when we know the culture goes much wider. i believe, however, there is a upthe'veo-,wul dgd iryt' nste ctm ort t sal oug r,at his timetable, and the second part of it looks over 12 months at a much wider area of the culture inryprces thinthe fop tsoeear irt oo tde ltanac ie wie e m os [cheers and applause] >> i always look very carefully, listen very carefully to proposals from all sides of the house. resetakehrein fu o inf se tp t er inquiry, and we're going to implement the inquiry which will for the first time separate p investment

bankingmetailki. cooithnq, t prin wn h , g toohe ltofnky honorable friend confirmed that thisorning. the third point i would make but, again, all these points therra o looked , is cly inign.hril e dasnp f judge-led inquiry which might not be able to get under way. so as i say, if you want to do this as fast asposs, to g tis a psi i ine 'vuged bu clyve tot whthusof lords voted against the public inquiry. we have made time available on thursday which hasn't happened before for an oppositiio be teoon a avento t baanteed klha mrse

prs substance. getting on wit. so i hope we can accept the results from thursday. >> m ser w and! tle oon y thea aule iry to pnd en rlyanged his mind. in justifying that decision he said this: i don't believe there is any better process than an an othheol g pede fig th facts. mr. speaker, why is itight to have this judge-led approach to the scandal in the press but wrong for the scandal in the tond dreben e rcanwihe lon inquiry and th circumstances with this inquiry. because, of course, the lev son inquiry followed a whole series of unsuccessful and failed on tca w h

sssuiroe auitics uer the wrongdoing. now what's required is swift inquiry, swift action, swift legislation, and that's what untoheth of publicis governme. ofonncer b.e depths of the lack h se s-- cotethsell ur ms. but that it can goas wide as it likes. it's simply not realistic. i do say to him that i've listened to his conrns, and veop awayod. iny empng on the chancellor's timetable by

christmas on libor and then oking at the wider issue shoes, ad e m es t thlt arae ey. iuntahe pic ncabs e h w wt ot i flyh government that is going to legislate to split the bank, this gernment thas spp erth aem tgomeha tred besot nkyir t prl and we've introduced the most transparent regime for pay and bonuses in any financial center anywhe in the world. as evidence th thi house mmis int, w quonuprs he wh w soehi honorable gentleman, we are having a vote in the house of commons tomorrow, a vote on his motion and a vote on the governme motion. ea i osi tiithwi

,ndde pic ir . wd h twha te government motion is carried, he will cooperate with the full par lt ri -- rlnt iry elld! mpe, spr, ea i'tnkhim stet. t df pc concern. now, i hope, i do hope he'll reconsider his position. but he mentied the vickers' iniry,ndsy' pltiheic' ir thbory ita issue that's come out in he last two weeks about the way in which high street bks have thaiatul n bducts to small bu a lin t s, toveneed s c mmtif inhtthrecent scandal with small businesses damaged, will he now u-turn and implement

the vickers' recommendations in full? a y oceoirst of l, m aren t things -- [inaudible] [cheers and applause] now, on his specific, on his specic qstioon ifstn a er ir rs a l ea gomewieleed by this government, something that hasn't happened before. colex derivatives will be included in the investment nk nale bat nta me . he wants a quick resolution to this, he must accept the outcome of a vote in the house of commons. i'm prepared to do that, why isn't he? >>pe, ak- inthor seeaht

gsped that it's not the responsibility of the leader of the opposition to answer, so they should pipe down and try to be good boys if theyan. 20 oe 2of h, ase marketeer by conviction, it will not surprise you to hear me say that the problem of the past decade is [lauter]latn. heers andpplse] pr stads t heanpl] wve a eves scandals happen, he is slow to act, and he stands up for the wrong people. the question people are asking,

is who will at etura pates?an s tybally s. ife ato finish if he -- if he fails to order a jue-led inquiry, people will come to one conclusion; hesi c't act tatler >>ouar.pe, ery what is happenin here. >>erers and applause] erlan. bers noyit to opposition back benchers, let the prime minister be heard. >> the party opposite want to talk aout absolutely everything art om theirorf3 i ty,pe,e pale, labour haven't found a

sense of shame. [cheers and appuse] >>nkou,r.able] y a hlyat d itciisi the announcement of the higgs boson discovery. 6,000 scientists worked i lounsied rst experiments. can the prime minister confirm this government's commitment to science and its commitment to -- [iudible] >> thkhe honaby isanso rme beoisxrdyh eaou, not least higgs himself and extraordinary work, as she says, done in the northwest of england. evneined shodotuery big st

isert'omen e ncdgsho whwehato make difficult caps, we've preserved the science budget. >> shannon. >> the last 15 ys has tnesdaohe o nk nale o. , leven2% arin rbs, therefore, government has major sayf what happens in the bank of northern ireland. can the prime ministere thilve dtnfrsha e e mte >>ll ian quite understand why the right honorable raises this on behalf of his constituts. clearly, it's an operational matter for the bank,ut the ha bnning tois elan r ra ie sta te r he ireland, spoke

yesterday tohe chairman of rbs. peieauf eatl rbue aue] constituents are losing faith in their banks. what they need from the prime minister is a reauran e'eo molital etinurdt taar- [inaudle] >> what matters for his constituents and, frankly, everyone ithis house is that wehaon h o.ottom oat s,lle ae usos,h n weseo house to hold these inquiries, to find these facts, to pass these laws. let's get on with it. >> be david hans mactg wlo i

nsenn rg d ulo h cothimis confirm to the house that thepp figures last week showed that his government's performance s ch atu,isnxpeed reques i meg aos bscluding in his constituency, marley as it come -- particularly as it comes thivse.n extrabs m erabth refes s alal ferhi et ave united king tom, and we need to work very, very hard with the welsh assely government to try to make sure we're making ws repeve >>nk, ke y ohelti le pntnuse in my ownospil, the majority

of consultants have said they have no confidence in the proposed clinicalhange by the trust, by tstajory of eli ule eiscom at l te stlphe commissions and local people in eastur re iho't myghnoer,e anouen stlng but if you look across the health service, inpatient and outpient waiting times are down, and we've got the best-er rformance for add tt sfen e ,hal sce g >> [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. the clone office in scotland has anestintd it'seeriut leon sal b

clgteed rha ov fnat t financial markets. does the prime minister back that investigation and given the scale of the crisis and puic anger, will he back the need for a ful deen je- qu filylli u eee he heor t awoor gsre rsof all, we should allow all of the investigative authorities to carry out their investigations and take them wherever the evidence leads them. 's te e sus thee oertha tuf ic e d e problem -- inquiry. and the problem i think with the suggestion he makes is as these investigations are ongoing,st sier hol a rd tho se uveat >>esrt wmeeldheme sten tmecy services, local authorities and communities across the northeast that swungnto action so

effectively when the region w hit by flooding last wk? w t fng s a grat a anou tmecy i ys-- h constituency, but when i was in west yorkshire, the incredible work done tre. evhesehingap eraninibom ge teleowh h fed oirom i k ss e t nkplr what they've done on others' behalf. ..

first of all, the proposals which we are already working to ensure people can move their accots quickly, cheaply and easily ec a aslut are govement ee n tald s. >> my friend makes important points. on the first point being able to move your bank account, that will be n place later this year. on the issue o ai nkwhweed tdo u ba afi iouall ax or hm. that resolution regime which for 13 years was left untouched has hs l eod with by this

ro jsddmocracy. they're filling today pretreat coy.powers or resources to this enhe gng o loeou t eeenduo peni to decide whether it stays and get out ofthat. >> whaverptrd hic wt utelo stert u ind atsig bioof ndd ket vw hoepng on t side foeoit,cinn that sie

s y constituency, children in my constituency have been involved in andacdt. wieme ni tlptrg inkfrnd is right away the constituency so many people have lost their lives willenly ok awh e ys isaer h --p pis up disconnect bearing the brunt of the prime minister's recession does that mean todayhat yet another business is going under wihes oa tscne, stpie st asants i thwent malsi idw by 1.7 billion. i think that now it's clear the ea pcyemnds out work.

keil 2ioun e ons. ohy lready available. the scheme already sought the businesses go up in 2011. it is adffiat w hatanrou t eti suthnk feglw e ng wcto net tes d into the hard-pressed businesses. f eult s efiba ut imssed for are forced to resign and the banks fail to act ppriay l gomeo tbeo tr esat r le ak wyou

bonuses and severance pay? >> i think h makes an extremely cists n feiv u t y itlbeply pu aouotb ight ivry muchhope that doesn't happen. in terms of what the government can do what we aregoing to do to legislate so that all paid vondse hicuin vr aynt aismththpr po h 13 years to do we are going to do it in her to. >> since they made anso thye fi, h tegrnnar e tai ra bringing in and around 40 billion without any increase in generating a million or more johic aatwy

gr rr tsu. >> i hate to remind the gentleman he was a minister in the gvernnt the last couple rules the people in te cit we p e txeta e neeryi na. of ciaio2o we have a fair system. inircetwyyi met reely td e ke er tgehesoeyowychenth uns r ta chnce. as the chair of the high-level panel on the millennium development co how will the prime minister restart eforts to nsalir bo a ouheld t ho >>frers man inwhcecampaign none of us would have seen in our

constituency and is a brilliant way of teaching young peoplehe importance of showing responsibilio h r s thldo' do irepin 3 ioil i h primary education and by 2014, we hope to u that to 9 million people saw the government is playing its part but we want l civsc coo sa ot ank crisis in northern ireland where the individuals and businesses are denied even basic facilies, can the preinlong wii heivaldot ne itrf liabilities so he can help through the cash flow problems that may exist as a problem they di c? wgewth oo pe d lout r

an cage t pothhe s about the hr m ci will discuss with the chancellor. >> i welcome the governmt's coitmet heend s heaohe offhstp thisn hut weekend, well above trimester continue making aid to afghanistaconditional number protectionf ht men lis s udtc tk ak very important point. what we see in afghanistan is whereas in 20 there were less than a million children attending schoolnd of course e eenogr in oln 1 sc itandeg min hee girls. i would listen to what she said of the program and discuss it

with the secretary of stte. it is important thate atch ndns h ren prrts caak e u e xpt bt ecic difficulty at home but she's right to raise this issue because if we want a stable and prlype.nhethroisistan, ened >> ser ie iinr opun tes t b the friend? as the prime minister believes in the sovereignty tie ers tet gh tou fl t teo orposition. i have the view the government has the clear view about the right wayahead. fnd mne vt be amoti foe an u

thin.te i will be down by a vote for the public inquiry. will he be bound of thehouse voted for the pametary? if h cweta e eowiakvi n thy niqice they don't want that done in public. thank yomakteye opuntorn h at ge. mierrem iaythe plans of some union leaders? >> i think my friend makes an un u tis nouwe ae vd interest. what did we have with hi on the trade unn? absolutely nothing and the whole country will be listening to

that. we ought t sie relycs thr ldkaot >>nkm peak. awitnessed the storms last week across the country. and my own village it hit the headlines. thunece rv heme crn e rn w ber thl y rt these agencieswth? ti ourllthat anecjoyma y couth i necessary and i also think the government should lend a sympathetic to your to te locl councils and organizations that toe fieo tg a arterhiud rarr ant hand i have said to the

department we should be gnerous in helping people get their lives togethergi meta allpos mohalstseor? combined. it's a confidence in our policies to make britain a place to do business. y nda lest thamutl us on tce hertino london is the patience that cover the pharmaceuticals, those industries that is going to be in lonn as well and that i minspndd esf st ithinry d oaialcity. thshonc.cnenive this mot

an meg.t ins tl et eo isarnaacof the year who teaches english at the southern california middle school. the natial education association is the natio largt ao uonn llterst hme i ho bispto r a hwji i herself a professor at a school in northern virginia. we will hear from the national teacher ofthe year, rebecca weumeyrug in just a litl bi thewa uld11:0 s et e ero coge -pan2. while we wait, comments from the president of the nea to encourage members to get behind president obama earlier this week. edio ensh ss ty that's w it's public.

that's why we needed this for all. [applause]blduioke mra ng dyihiyand vielp ts om odits. part of the democratic republic. public education is the vehicle id.teach american values and luikejscet l rty ddmcy. in a nation where equal opportunity is one of our most deeply held values,education is the key that opens h oro pe falbndo th jfo tarn luther king, jr. topresident obama have understood the anrovsas t of ei rci

titdrn easiof education, not the curiculum narrowed to fit the high-stakes standardized test buthe rich curriculum atcls uicda ofsitio e,old whole universe to inpire our students. educion should prepare young peop forhe fe oe bursmro ca than academics. so when we talk about the why of puic education, the pupose ads ne oe wve is lhat aoi nutrition, seat school and family environment.

all these things impact learning and studendven reols ch divwre a i is hls life. we never know when we might have an impact on their development or their growth as a person so we hto tmmr stt ae. one year ask all of my high school math students to each write me a leter about their thkso.oun ngapron i that night as i as reading 160 letters written just for me one of them grabbed e sh a darla

ll erreaotixk les she said one thing mr. van roek doesn't know about me is my dad iedwo weeks befosholsat juar fth ih soree im like that come academics sure they are important but that's not all yomeds dt neds melse, rs, o encourage and you know those things just can't be bu ia nwnaet hr y ppe] capolyrell them ourslves. what we can do iscreate partnerships and work with other

people to meet all those . cn't duon y y rss wed e ony sthro t poltical process we are going to talk a lot about overthe next few days becaus this year public thrsemtt e ns mu do everything we can to re-elect preident barack obama. prena anur ppin s m. crr ae s more than 400 educators working with students. he expanded access to health care to some 40 milli ichuge fol re wtalywa lly wspem

t he issued an executive order to open the door of opportunity to hundreds of hods ofsdetaw ibor rctd we ee to ensure student loans remain affordable. we know the other side will we'towte t rki lion wrectei a. [aus yes we mutngagin t ti yt thinh. el ttsci es challenging times we must also harness the strength of our association to take charge --

val.apeint el tthar g cotientog comments to the speed conference from the national teacher of the year, rebecca mieliwocki being roheatteed now [aus ishrsecocrer we have more and more folks that decided to do something important with their lives as a second career and worfrou en yeenchg o 4 s tls nye shacgnrdnre ftdalented pluses and serves on the school leadership team, and i eat reading biographies. you can read her bio. bu w o i mi het. iir s reecca is

the sense of urgency and passion that she has tha she needs to help these kidsighow oa. en nevi, c tht wo thil ar md d o the classroom which i felt a profound and at the same time a little creepy. sha'taier g yt eny t ese o comtment without being a strong leader. her colleagues looked to her as an example of leadership in her asm. va aea ochgybihe rlre t hudents she's serving. she made us all so prelate in april when pesident bama no ht w ose thnatohe h

. sh h ed ch ebt. is amazing. she gavefelice to what is in thcuanrei of dcors ross hae . acate n er s't one. every day here in america achers with patience and creativity are opening doors for ofepos,w,nuerach ep w r ms o w nvon and it's not unusual, it is at a rare thing. happs eve dayn ama' oondeeu owht 'shtstoth ic ppe]

rebecca, io love yu for what you do, for the voice yu liound csste and funny passionate people whose work is to love somee 'sd. a aiv p corbcmlii,12 [applause] >> what a large bomb gorgeous benduphradits,pol

igioulnet lm myself down and that'sa lot of flesh. it is. [laughter] it didn't called me down. it mae me scared. std i'moing tsay my a aecati hondewstoc he rllied the troops after school to that very important meeting. you know the one i'm talking oivon tahe chanmeme and see my geometry teacher and my science teacher and english teacher sitting atour counter drinkingw. afiafton itw anincausas you would imagine, i was not exactly a model stude.

and now here i stand md he tengo,tenyn' stm la e ahw- goto start with another story. there was 9:32 in the morning up in front of my class. i had a great lesson to run f e a'v ogeou ap o hhior' in m gin hiswt re things are really good and the class is wih me. i know that because of a hand goes up and then another and then another. th r ngd ire.e. bucai' tide f threfascinating like reflective pronouns -- english teachers i dosto ti m norl. o nupke

ac. atah th uso paefra minute because now not only is every hand in the arab half the class is doing that in with ther hand with a stab at the sky t trt t atind o rag hn lo uc co in imploring me please, call on me! i orndzzld. essaobu hnvrse cctshe ly ts e it took me an eternity to look down and see what was the the entire class had known about for ten minutes but i was far too wrapped up in what i was doing thaswaanmsi gh gi aa d ldslytractionth

ndply my leg while i had been teaching puddling in a rrible ankle scarf at y et gh bl mveated to occur to remedy that situation but suffice it to say, that thseh ads forever in the indof gh rein orelf hw onchd oso kihy on earth does the national teacher of the year start with a really embarrassing story? upwhe nk iste ige this story uranta fi

see some really important truths that are staring us right in the face. teg tersysng this nta in ppe] results whh canbring devastating consequences and enormous pride to school but thestest s t o y hiasmer. hen'llm thantesr a schools are strong. these tests cannot bewhat drives decision making and education, and yet -- [applause] ndt atwihe esicaven orfr i ha n e de se about. mincy lt tells us by 2014 every child in america will be maoficient in language arts and

idang polego tad hoannysenis trying to obtain. why? because you and i have high stdards and we understand when prtiyey rdelel av hn uaty athl le t uny forever. [applause] inning for proficiency means we deem it to cate generations of childr whoeaagnd kn mca e o eranaow ap yfgeod n suddenly proficient wha then? what would we wish we had spent the last many years and our time anattentioand lentnd wed pa wed hpeuren s