it's a tool to pay for it, make it affordable. that's not my characterization, that's congress' characterization in so finding i on page 43 of government's brief. that bring please to my first point's in rebuttal. mr. president kneedler says quite kwect correctly, tells the court don't look at budgetary implications. the problem, once it's common ground the individual mandate is in the statute at least in part to make community rating and guaranteed issue affordable. that really is all you have to identify. that establishes the essential link that it's there to pay for. you don't have to figure out exactly how much that is and which box. i mean, clearly it's a substantial part of it, because what they were trying to do is to help individuals and put them into the risk pool and this is quoting their finding which is in order that the people in the market, which will lower premiums. so that's what they're intent was. you don't have to get to the final number. you know that's what was going on here. that's the reason alone to sever it. the government, mr. kneedler

also says, there's an easy dividing line between what that want to keep and dish out. the problem with that, you read their brief and might think, oh, there's a guaranteed issue in a community rating provision subtitle in the bill. there's not. to figure what they're talking about, go to page 6 of their opening severability brief they tell you what's in and out. the easy dividing line they suggest is actually between 300 ga-1 and 2. community rating, they say that a1 goes. but then they say a2 has to stay. a way you'll have some sort of a community rating for the exchanges. but if you actually look at those provision, a2 makes all of the rirchss to a1. it just doesn't work. now, in getting back to the inquiry i think this court actually can approach, it's to look at what congress is trying to do, you need look no further than the title of the statute. patient protection and affordable care. i agree with there farr, that community rating and guaranteed

issue were the crown jewels of this act. they were what was trying to provide patient protection. and what made it affordable? the individual mandate. if you strike down guaranteed issue community rating and the individual mandate there's nothing left at the heart of 9 act. that take meese to my last point, simply, this court in buckley create add halfway house and it took congress 40 years to try to deal with the situation when contrary to any time of their intent they had to figure out what are we going to do when stuck with this band of contributions but can't get added expenditures because the court told us we couldn't. four 40 years worked on that halfway house. why make them do that in health care? the choice is give congress the task of fixing the statute, the residual of the statute, after some of it struck down or giving them the task of simply have fixing the problem on a clean slate. i don't think that's a close choice. if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the rest of the act should fall. >> thank you, mr. clement. mr. farr? you were invited by this court

to brief and argue in these cases in support of the condition blee elow on severabi. you have carried that out. we are grateful. the case is submitted. we will continue argument in case number 11400 this afternoon. on your screen, paul clement, who argued all cases this week. court just wrapped up the second of the two cases they were hearing today. the afternoon case about the expansion of medicaid in the states. we're going to air that here on c-span3 in about 45 minutes. about 3:15 eastern. also going to take your calls momentarily, but as lawyers com we're going to listen in for possible comments withyou' watcn

c-span3. >> we just got out of the arguments and we're actually you know, delighted that the case is

now under submission and we've had an opportunity to explain to the court why the states and the nfib think the statute is unconstitutional and why not just the individual mandate is unconstitutional because that's what was argued before the court yesterday, but also that the medicaid expanse is unconstitutional and that the invalidation of the mandate would cause it's entire statute to be struck down. that was the nature of the proceedings today. a great privilege to be able to present our case to the united states supreme court, obviously. a great privilege to argue and share the podium with the solicitor general of the united states, who did a terrific job. so this is all been something where we really feel like this is a process that started back in florida at the very beginning when this law was passed. it was challenged. we worked our way through the 11th circuit. the idea all along to get the opportunity to present our case to the supreme court of the united states, we've now had that opportunity. we're delighted to have had the

opportunity and, of course, now, the case is under submission to the supreme court. >> any idea how justices -- >> all we have to go on is the questions that asked today. at the hearing at the morning and afternoon and yesterday, you can tell from the questions as in every other case, i never argued, the justices are focused on the case, asking hard questions of both sides. i would never get in the business of being a prognosticator. i think the one thing pretty secure is that the justices are taking this case very seriously, that the deliberations process for them has just begun, really, and it's a relief i think to the lawyers involved, though, that the argument process is now pretty much over. >> what do you -- >> your argument? >> well, obviously there's been a lot argued over the last couple of days. the first day people were discussing whether or not the court could even hear the case, whether it had jurisdiction. yesterday the case was about the individual mandate. there the argument that the states presented was actually quite simple, which is that the

power to regulate commerce does not include the power to compel individuals to enter commerce. and today the issues were what the issue of severability, lawyer speak for whether or not if the individual mandate is unconstitutional the entirety of the statute must fall and then the third issue or the last of these issue that was discussed this afternoon where we just wrapped up was the question of the medicaid expansion and whether or not that which really has a huge economic impact on the states was something that violated basic principles of -- >> pleased with the chief justice comments and questions on the medicaid expansion review? raising questions this goes beyond sovereign -- >> obviously, from the first time with served petition in this case people questioned whether or not the court would really be interested in the coercion doctrine, something discussed in their cases but haven't struck down a statute previously on the basis of this doctrine. there were people suggesting that maybe this wasn't the strongest part of our case. the supreme court ob outsidely

thought differently and took the case. i think you saw in the questions from all of the justices and the fact that argument, that the justices actually gave both sides a little extra time. you can see they were certainly taking this case and this challenge seriously. >> are you satisfied with you and the -- just on the individual mandate and the government prevailed on the others? what's the impact of just winning on the individual mandate question? >> well, obviously, we are interested in winning, getting complete relief. any litigant, if you take the traub litigate to the supreme court you're looking for complete relief at the end of the day. that said, even if the court did nothing more than strike down the individual mandate it would be a significant victory a landmark decision of the supreme court. i think it would justify even the long lines out here if the court did that. and there were many people that at the beginning of this case suggested that the challenge of the law was frivolous. i'm not sure.

there's obviously naysayers in every group. challenge this frivolous after six-plus hours of argument and all the courts questions making clear that the justices are taking every aspect of this case very seriously. >> bottom line, what's at stake here? >> at stake, i late to sound trite. this is congress stushl law in its finest sense. at stake, the basic nature of our government. we don't have a government where generally the federal government has a police power to tell citizens to do anything they want. the federal government is a government's limited enumerated powers so they can do things like regulate commerce, but there's a vast difference between regulating somebody who's voluntarily come into commerce and telling somebody that they have no choice but to enter the streecam of commerce. that's the stakes of the mandate. the coercion argument that hasn't gotten as much attention, the stakes there are equally fundamental, because we have a system where the federal government again is one of limiting enumerated powers and

there are certain things it can give states incentives to do and isn't the spending power it can't do directly, but that makes it absolutely vital to make sure there's a difference between voluntary spending legislation and coercive legislation. that's exactly what's at stake. whether this legislation is coercive. >> it seemed yesterday justices were leaning towards striking down the individual mandate. how did you read the justices questions questioned? >> i read the justices as all testing the limits of the theories on both sides of the case. it's a mistake to try to say justices were leaning this way or that way. trier obviously trying to get to the right answer in these cases and i took it as a good sign all justices were engaged and asking difficult questions of both sides. >> what does it mean, like going to the heart of the issue that people are arguing for the pre-existing conditions? back to square one? >> i don't think anybody thinks if all or some part of this statute is struck down that

congress is just going to call it a day. so i think that whatever the court decides, if it strikes down part of this law, congress is going to revisit this issue. part of that is what the severability argument gets down to. our position is, that if parts of the statute are unconstitutional, it actually probably makes more sense to give congress the opportunity to fix the health care problem as opposed to fix the statute. >> -- cases have you participated in? >> a lot longer. tell thaw right there. i certainly have appreciation, new-found appreciation for the advocates in the old supreme court that used to typically argue case as it took multiple days, because it's a little harder to get up in the morning on the second day. i'll tell you that. and that aspect of it i think is something. the stakes therefore this they really could be higher. i don't think there's been a suit over half the states have sued the federal government over the constitutionality of a statute. the stakes here really are enormous. thank you very much.

former solicitor general paul clement who argued today before the supreme court speak wig reporters. we're going to take you over to another news conference happening outside the court. a number of republicans states attorneys general are speaking with reporters now. we'll take you there live. >> scalia, justice scalia said, is it conceivable to you when talking to the governmentt if you say yes to this it's coercion. definitely an air of coercion, some of the justices questions an comments. >> on behalf attorneys general we'd like to thank paul clement. c job. we are so proud. [ applause ] >> i really appreciate it. an honor to represent you. i had the great trig privilege represent the united states and the sg office. but the opportunity to represent over half the nation's states in a challenge ofis is a high professional honor. i appreciate the opportunity you've given me. >> what's your main takeaway

from the arguments today? >> well, my main takeaway is that the court is obviously considering all of these issues seriously. people thought it was remarkable that the court granted six hours of argument for this case, really hours wasn't enough. the justices kept both lawyers today in the afternoon session at the poeld ydium a little lon. that doesn't mean they can't get enough. it means the stakes are they really are high. the fundamental principles of our government a government of limited and enumerated powers, whether the statasovereignty or instrumentalities of the federal government. the stakes are definitely higher. >> any comments that stick o a questions -- >> no. it was a great sign that all of the justices were sngad and so thoughtful about the issues in this case. particularly this afternoon's session. the question of whether or not the federal government can coerce the states from spending pow sir something that court has

talked about in a number of oaf cases but never struck in and ta ground. when we asked them to review that aspect,lot of people said the court wouldn't be interested. they were proven wrong today by how serious all of the justices were in considering these cases. i think they all understand whether they vote for us or against us, they all understand that this is really a fundamentalsuf government. >> that's right. >> from the first session this morning, do you think of the judges to want were to strike down the whole law? because then it would be sort of in their hands? >> well, you know -- you know, i think obviously, no justice of this court no judge of any court, thinks likely about striking down an entire act of congress, but i think the question is really what's going? try fix the statute or actually start a clean slate and try to

fix the underlying problem? our basic sub submission, find the basic mandate unkor unconstitutional, congress, try to fix the problem not just the statute we've left you with. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you bet. republicans state attorneys general on their representative before the supreme court, paul clement, former solicitor general speaking with reporters. they've just come out of the last of this week's supreme court oral arguments. we're going to show that to you in a half an hour here on c-span3. on c-span radio and c-span.org. that oral argument on the expansion of medicaid in the states. we want to open up our phone lines and get your thoughts on what you've seen today and the last couple of days. democrat, 202-737-0001. republicans 202-737-0002.

independents, 202-628-0205. mute your television or radio when you call in. it you are on twitter follow c-span, looking at the hash tag c-span scotus and will try to receipt tweets going through. aiming for 3:15 when we're bring you the final argument for the supreme court. here's bill in atlanta on our democrats' line. good afternoon. >> caller: good afternoon. how are you? >> doing very well. >> caller: yes. my question, i have a two-part question. the first part was, i never heard from justice thomas at all. was he there? >> yes, he is there. he typically does not ask questions in oral arguments. >> caller: okay. and second part of my question is, i understand that they were trying to get to the liability of -- of the, the part of the law that requires people to pay

into the -- the policy. if you have a policy, in order to participate or be fined if they don't. my problem is with that is the opposition -- does the opposition have any, any way of providing for the policy if there is no policy that people have to pay in? >> bill that is the subject of the first case the court heard today. the one we just aired, and we will air that later in our schedule as well. tampa florida. irene is next on our republican line. welcome. >> caller: yes. you know, i want to strike down this law. a common sense approach to this, especially with medicaid. nothing should be absolutely free. why can't they have people in medicaid that pay what they can, and, also, when you know

something is going to be there for you free, you have a tendency to depend on that. and everyone that opposed the government for health care should be made to sign a commitment that when they get better and working, that they will pay part of that money back. because it just seems like, you know, you have kids out here 16 years old paying into medicare. it seems like a more sensible approach. why don't you have a plan where, if you are 16, you get about 25, until you get about 25, and you don't have health insurance, you don't have to pay into medicare. do you understand what i'm saying? i'm 65 years old, and all i'm saying is nothing should be absolutely free. >> irene in tampa, florida here. you're looking at paul clement still speaking with other

reporters. we're at the supreme court. here's rob in indianapolis on our independent line. >> caller: hi.going? >> very well. >> caller: toeattorney clement e a great segue ending this conversation saying really what they want to do is fix the problem, and i think the problem reallyab health care costs. i'd like to interject this into the national cosave somebody to it and hear about it. i think the real question is supply and demand, or market forces. i think they should build more medical schools and hospitals. more doctors equals more competition and that equals lower prices, this is ow how about other markets work. they talk about the cost of this bill. why can't they use that to build more hospitals and medical80% o students that apply to medical schools are turned down every year. so that makes our current medical system a monopoly. why can't we fix it by increasing, by threefold, the

number of doctors? shouldn't half or a third? i'll hang up and listen. thanks very much. >> we're looking at the gathering outside the supreme court. and large crowds of people all three days before the court. and the last ca a short while . we're going to air that for you about 3:15. a little thereafter. that's the case of medicaid and the part of the health care law that calls on the expansion of medicaid in the states. next up is russell from houston. how are you? >> caller: i would like to see this removed from the abuse that it's going to force on the united states let me qualify that by saying i'm a lifelong democrat.

and having been in the trenches, so to speak,5 years, i know that the average working person when caught up in the daily grind of making a liveing that they missed a lot of what was going on. they missed the subtle tricks that we as union organizers were taught. and i see that playing out now. and, of course, i have regrets. >> when you say, russell, you see that playing out. you've seen it playing out in demonstrations before the court? >> caller: not so much now. my mind was made up having time to follow this very closely. i just know know what is

attempted to alter our law r our constitution forever. i recognize are tactic rules for radicals. and i just see that a lot of it is smoke and mirrors. and most of the people don't realize what's going on. i'm glad to learn people can take these things before the skr justices and break them down. one of the humorous things for me was justice kennedy had to repeat several times, "attack? attack? >> reminder we will air for you

the last case dealing with medicaid about 3:15 and all the oral arguments are on our website.'s pti in minnesoapolis the republican line. >> caller: good afternoon. first of all, no one is mentioning the fact that justice kagan craft the defense the bill and why she didn't recuse her. there's been a lot of criticism for the attorney. but can you imagine having to get up in front of justices and defend is that 2,700-page bill that's unconstitutional and changes our entire country? and one last thing i wish you would please dress. every day when i listen to washington journal, democrats call in on the republican line

and then the republicans and republican principles, and you guys never, ever challenge them. i wonder if we do not care that this happens every day. that your lines are being called in. the democrats call in on the democrat line. the republican line and the independent line. it's grossly unfair. you folks act like it isn't happening. is it okay that this happens? >> now, patti, keep up the complaining. we love hearing from you. we try to separate the lines so we give people a choice on all three lines. and sometimes you can't control that. we do our best. let's take you to the court again and the gathering outside after the end of the last oral argument before the court today. >> freedom!

>> 1.79 trillion so far! 1.79 trillion so fa 1.79 trillion so far! 1.17 trillion so far! 1.79 trillion so far! 1.79 trillion so far! 1.79 trillion so far. 1.79 trillion so far! 1.79 trillion so far! 1.79 trillion so far! 1.79 trillion so far! >> the law law of the

land. follow the law. [inaudible chattering ] there hasn't been a single court expansion to be we had a judge in florida that held that the provisionability but in both instances -- it was constitutional.

[inaudible] i think the end of the day when the justices get together, particularly the chief justice understands what t the repercussions will be. i don't think that's something the court is going to want to do. [inaudible]. >> still a pretty good crowd as you can see outside the supreme

court. our cameras keeping an eye as the demonstrators and participants from all stripes. stay around as the closure after the last oral argument on medicaid. we understand that that oral argument went a bit longer than expected, about an hour and 25 minutes. our plan is to show it to you at 3:15 or as soon as it's available. in the meantime, back to your calls. mary kate is in minnesota. welcome. >> caller: hi. thank you. there are hospitals that are required to accept and treat patients without insurance. what if that was not true? would you be sick until you die? this would help keep rates low with healthy people paying in

young people don't always stay healthy. they do grow old, and they do have health problems. this is ang independent caller. >> first i want to commend c-span for putting us on. this is just a remarkable exercise in how government and communications should work. i've enjoyed watching these arguments. and i think it's been illuminating to anybody. no matter what the party is or like me, are in between. one question that i did have. on today's issue on the severability thing, i heard commentary originally that usually when bills are drafted they put in a clause that basically says if any part of this bill is found to be defective it will not affect the remaining parts of the bill.