hi didn't hear that addressed today. i wondered if it was something addressed in the briefs or just isn't seen as an issue? >> well, bob, i can't ans that. i'll leave your question out there and others paying more close attention or better knowledge can answer that. but i'm sure it's probably an area where we'll hear more discussion in the coming days. next up is robert in long island. hi, robert. >> caller: hi. actually, the first part of the argument seemed the most relevant. which was the question about the overreach of the congress and precisely what their limitations are. and justice scalia's example of broccoli for the sake of their health.

i thought a more general question would have been the question of since overpopulation has become such a major issue around the world and from some segments of this country, i wonder if congress would have the authority to pass a contraception, a forced contraception act and based on the fact that overpop lag is costing us generally and medically specifically. and by suggesting that contraception must be used. i wonder if that's something both liberals and conservatives would be able to agree on. of course, i ask somewhat facetiously. when it comes to contraception where the divide so great, here would be an opportunity for the congress to be able to pass something that would perhaps fall in line with liberal thinking as to their authority,

and yet, perhaps, would be a little uncomfortable to many of those in the country that support this particular argument of the obama care program. so i put that out there for an answer to the question. i was interested to know how far they would be willing to give the obama care the right to institute individual minnesota date dates. >> well, thanks for putting that out there. he signed the affordable care act on march 23rd, 2010. and all this week the court has considered numerous aspects of the law. republicans have passed a number of bills dealing with the health care law. they've passed the house but gone nowhere in the senate.

max is next from north carolina. >> caller: hi. how are you today? >> fine, thanks. >> caller: before i get into what i would like to say, i would like to answer the lady who said that a lot of democrats call in on the republican line. i'm sure she's right, but also a lot of republicans call in on the democratic line, too. so probably it works out about even. although either said you're on says no it doesn't. what i would like to say is if our founding fathers intended for the constitution to be used to deny health care for our people. then i have been misinformed about our founding fathers. also, if there are members of the supreme court who spor

denying care for those people, those members are unfit to serve on that court and should be impeached immediately. >> max, thank you for joining in. we expect about 10 or 15 minutes more and we'll have the oral argument for you here on c-span 3. we're taking your phone calls in the meantime and keeping an eye on twitter. we have a hash tag we've been looking at. if you want to tweet something to us, we'll tak those as well. let's hear from joe in medford, new york. joe is on our republican line. hi, joe. >> caller: first i would like to say i'm a republican calling in on the republican line. >> tank that democrats are calling in and seeing the errors o f the ways of the union and what their

motives are in changing the country. they basically said obama care will already cost twice as much as it was originally projected to cost, and now if the mandate is struck down, that's going to further that hole, how they could argue the law stand without the mandate? thank you. >> thank you. a number of members of congress have attended at least one of the ten. he spoke to reporters after the oral argument this morning. >> well, it's certainly a profound opportunity to watch the supreme court in action. we hope and pray this isn't just results or yenlted.

there's a profound constitutional question. that is can the united states congress essentially delay inactivity over activity. clearly there tr no limit what is congress can do. we know the american people have already spoken about the policy. they know it's going to cost them money. it's going to cost them jobs. but does the constitution mean what it says? i'm somewhat hopeful time will tell ultimately what the ruling is. what did you walk out feel sng. >> well, i ended up feeling sorry for both attorneys since they rarely got to answer a

question. it was a very solemn occasion. there were some good arguments made with respect to coercion. in many respects the individual mandate. i'm hopeful in my reading at the constitution. i have the same opportunity as any other citizen o f the united states to read the constitution. the congress can absolutelinact. there must be limits to the power and scope of the federal governmen government. >> looking at what they call the severability, whether if the court found that the health care mandate could be severed out and still have the law itself

intact. let's take a few more minutes of phone calls. we expect to bring you the oral argument from this afternoon's case in just a bit. evelyn is in palo alto, florida, on the independent line. >> hello, to respond initially, first of all, to respond to gentlemen who thought the court was there to deny health care to the citihi that's the issue. the way congress has stur and tt into law is my understanding, not in the constitution of the united states to supply everybody with health care. as justice scalia said, it's really a question of do weerybl? do we feed them as well?

that's more basic than hea so my other issue with the whole tocedure is i feel this should way it was done. it was forced through. they didn't mislead us. they lied.us it was not ord to l they're turning around and saying it istax? and that result was an issue of many what was the ou taxes? >> evelyn, thanks. in reaction to the twitter site

here's one from silvia. >> caller: how are you? >> very well, thanks. >> caller: i have a brief point. first, everyone is talking about the taxes. where was everybody in 2003. every single iraqt that a tax? and number two, talking about the institution and constioncongss, a lot of yo really don't understand what the constitution dictates as far as commerce, as far as congress is

concerned. is unconstitutional and t this enumerated power of comm, power to regulat any type of commerce, which means any industry will raise prices and they and the congress have no say about regulating commerce. and then number three, also in 2005, eric cantor group of republicans also presented a health care bill that h mandatet health care reform bill. where wa andl angst then? and i'm done with my comment. thank you very much. >> part of the health care law into the states. as we take a look live outside the supreme court. conversation going on. that case has just wrapped up, oral arguments.

it's been a nice couple of days outside the court for demonstrators, reporters and seekers alike. cheryl is onyes, hello. my argument is that the mandate should totally be lished, and secondly i don't like the fact that 15 people are going to control my destiny, and ev neelse's destiny in this world, based on this health care we never really got to know about, because everything was done behind closed doors, which is unbelievable. medicare payment board?g about the independent payment board? >> a bill to repeal ppassed in.

a number of the republican efforts in the house to repeal bits of the health care law have not gone anywhere in the senate. deborah is next up. she's a democrat. >> caller: i would like to say i think everybody should have health care. i've paid for my health care since i was 18 years old? why shouldn't everybody have health care? i was healthy all my life, and then when i turned 50 i needed a hip replacement and i worked in a restaurant 35 years. need a hip replacement and a knee replacement. all the money i paid in, i got back. why should not everybody have health care? >> and your health care is medicare, deborah? >> caller: it is now. i worked in restaurants for 35 i think it was only dplr 4 or $5 a week.

if everybody paid their share, eventually they might need it when they get older, and i think everybody should pay for their own health care. and if they're poor and they can't, they should get subsidy. >> this is carol. carol, hello? >> caller: hello. i'm independent. hello? >> go ahead. this isn't carol. is this al? >>. >> caller: no, this is booker. >> i got it all wrong. go ahead with your comment. >> caller: i was watching the show with the supreme court and the affordable care act, and i'm really interested since my college days as the interstate commerce clause, and i don't see how the court could possibly rule against the mandate given

that this is done in the interstate commerce clause. because we think we're going to compete in the real world. we looked at all the trading partners. they all have insurance. so we need to get that in. >> booker, from what you heard, what do you think that will fair when the justices decide? >> caller: well, when you look at the clause, it's how they spend it over theyears. the toll bridges, the interstate system, you name it. it's been into the american interest. i don't see how the justices could possibly rule the mandate unconstitutional. >> thanks for being part of the conversation. now we get to carol in mesa, arizona. >> caller: thank you so much.

i listened to everybody. they should pay for it. but they won't. they want people that pay their taxes, and they want small bidses to pay for it. they keep saying this is an individual mandate. then why are small businesses, why do businesses have to pay for somebody's health care. the lady is totally right. i watched the whole thing when you had it on a few years ago when they were doing the bill. they wouldn't let the republicans say two words. they say something, vote it down, vote it down. vote it down. the president got himself in the mess, and so does nancy pelosi, who doesn't know what's in the bill. hell or high was going to go through. who is going to pay for it? our government, the senate can't put together a budget, and you think they can put 30 million more people on health care? >>

going to get a couple more calls here. next up is michigan. hi, al the free trade, which put pretty much every poor person out of work, not able to find insurance. there's no way any of the rest of the will have any meat.r is . richland, north carolina. democratic caller. go ahead. >> caller: hello. are you there? >> yes. we are. >> caller: okay. i have three things. one is when the supreme court had some arguments going on,

they mentioned about, you know, social security and medicaid. . well, they were unconstitutional as well. there were arguments, but they were overturn, overthrown on that. but to wrongs don't make this one right. and the second one is on vaccines. no big deal. not going to say a lot. but i have a problem that the supreme court keeps talking about vaccines and forcing everybody to be vaccinated. if that happens, no one is going to stick any chemicals inside my body. >> i'll let you go there, taylor. a few more calls here in california.

they estimate the obama care is is going to outweigh the savings and cosby 1.74 trillion, which is cost they allow them to regulate people who are a part of the trade. it doesn't force people to buy products. >> justin, thanks for weighing in george. you're going to get the last word on health care i make it quick. >> thank you. i lived in california all my life. the democrats have taken over the state. i'm a democrat. i don't like the way the sleazy law was passed in private quarters. they wouldn't let the republicans in at all.

>> thanks, george. 're going to let you go there. and thanks for all the calls. you can see all the oral arguments at c-span.org and weigh in on your arguments as well. twitter.com/cspan. here is today's oral argument. mr. chief justice, the constitutionality of the massive expansion of medicaid depends on the answer to two related questions. first is the expansion coercive, and second, does the coercion matter? >> can i ask you on just a matter of clarification, would you be making the same argument in federal government picked up 100% of the cost.

>> justice kagan, i would be ar >> the exact same argument. we're giving you a boat load of money. there were no conditions attached to it. it's just a load of federal money for you to take and spend on poorre. it doesn't sound coercive to me. if you have a stand alone program. >> well, you do make the argument and you're brief. no extraneous conditions. no match and fund. >> it is.

but before i make the point, you built into your question the idea that there is no conditions. and when you first asked, what about the same program with 100% matching on the ny mandatory individuals. that's how the statute refers to him. and that would have a very big condition. and the very big condition is that the states in order to get that new money, they would have to agree not only to the new conditions, but the government here is -- congress is leveraging. >> let me give you a hypothetical. suppose i'm an employer and i see somebody i really like. i say i'm going to give you $10 million a year to come work for me. thrs offered anywhere approaching $10 million a year, of course i'm going to say yes to that. we would both coercive. >> i guess i would want to know where the money came from. >> wow. wow. i'm offering you $10 million a

year to come work for me and you're saying this is anything but a great choice? >> sure. if i told you actually it came from my own bank account, and that's what's really going on here in part. the person is acting as a citizen of the united states. when a taxpayer pays taxes to new york, they are acting as a citizen of new york. new york cannot tell them than the federal government can tell new york what to do the moneys new york is collecting. >> new york and the united states figured out a way to tax individuals at greater than 100% of their income, maybe you could say two separate taxes. and we all know in the real world to the extent the federal government continues to make taxes that decreases the stability.

the states would have a claim against the federal government raising their taxes because somehow the states will feel coerced to lower their tax rate? >> no, justice sotomayor. i'm suggesting it's not the case to say, well, it's free money so we don't have to ask if the program is coerced. >> counsel, what percentage does it become coercive? meaning, as i look at the figures i've seen from a me guy, there are some states for whom the percentage of medicaid funding to their budget is close to 40%, but there are others that are less than 10%. and you say across the board this is coercive because no state even at 10% can give it up.

what's the percentage of big gift the federal government can give? because you're saying for a bankrupt state there's no gift the federal government could give them ever. no matter how much the federal government doesn't want to subsidize some other state obligation. the federal government can't give them 100% of their needs. >> and justice sotomayor, i'm saying essentially the opposite, which is there has to be some limit. there has to be some limit on coercion. the reason is quite simple. because this court's entire spending hour is premised on the notion that spending power is different and that congress can do things pursuant to the spending power they can't do pursuant to the other enumerated powers precisely because the programs are voluntary. and if you relax that assumption

that the programs are voluntary and you're saying they're coercion, then youca what makes? that the state doesn't want to face its voters and say instead of taking 10, 20, 30, 40% of the government's offer of our budget and paying for it ourselves and giving up money for some other function. that's what makes it coercive? >> maybe i can talk about the actual statute at issue here and focusing on what i think are the three hallmarks of this statue that make it coercive. one is the fact that this stat chud is tied to the decidedly nonvoluntary individual mandate. i'll continue. i thought you had a question. i'm sorry. the second factor is the fact

that congress here made a distinct and conscious decision to tie the state's willingness to accept the n funds to the entire participation in the statute. t segregated from the rest of the program. >> isn't that true of every medicaid increase? that each time -- i mean, it started many years ago, and congress has added more people and given more benefits and every time the condition is you want the program, take the program or leave it. isn some the expansion of nt the program. but not all. congress is made covering new eligible individuals total if they want to cover the newly eligible members they get additional money.

it created an option for. other expansions have taken place, such as the 1984 expansions, where they gave states the option. here congress created a second program. and those individuals are treated separately from the rest of the program going forward forever. they'll be reimbursed at at different rate from everybody else in the program. in light of the sell separation of congress in the newly eligible members of the rest of the program, it's very hard to understand congress's decision to say if you don't want to cover the newly eligible individuals, you don't just not get the new money, you don't get any of the money -- >> i'm sorry. where does it say that?

>> where does it say what? >> what you just said. you said congress says if you don't take the new money you don't get the old money that covers the the old individuals. that's what i heard you say. >> right. >> where does it say that ha? >> there's two places it says that. and this is not the point about the funding cutoff. this makes the point that the newly eligible individuals are really treated separate ly. >> i want the part about the funding. that section is what? i have it in front of me. i'll tell you what it says. it's been in the statute since 1965. >> exactly. >> and cite i have is 42 usc section 36-96