, neither of which are covered jurisdictions. registration turnout is almost indistinguishable. they are within single-digit percentage points. preclearance denials, one of us does not think that is a valid basis to judge discrimination. it dropped from 4% to 0.2%, despite the increase in requests for preclearance. requests or pre- clearance. finding the potential discrimination from the court since 1982, there have been four potential discriminations from voting. 13 of those have come from uncovered restrictions. most section two cases are brought in covered and uncovered states. secondly, it does not remedy modern non-voting wrongs.

best exemplified by the speaker from the law center current complaints of discrimination are basically across the country. they are found in covered its states -- covered states, but not exclusively. rhode island, minnesota wisconsin, new hampshire -- partially separate, but. the complaints of discrimination nowadays are registration problems and voter identification problems. provisional ballots and non- administration tabulation that relies on old technology. these things, not only are they not different but they are at times exacerbated by section 5 pre-clearance formula. if a particular place has long voting lines or outdated

tabulation behooving me to keep the current status flow in place amending those problems. this exacerbates the problems. they are most often cited as cases for discrimination. there are other problems with section 5 that the supreme court has talked about it has been argued that it causes harm to politics. the list goes on. most likely it would be coming next year. all of the justices have signed

on to a least some of the complaints that i have laid forth. i expect it to be ruled unconstitutional. >> i have a power point, but no object. ask and you shall receive? thank you. >> hello, everyone. take a deep, cleansing breath. this is a really good panel because i do not agree with anything on it. -- anyone on it. [laughter] >> i thought that we were co- counsel. >> we are co-counsel. i want to thank everyone for being here. ham especially, as her co- counsel -- as my co-counsel, she has done the heavy laboring on a number of these. now, how do you go forward? the right button goes forward? ok.

censorship not so much. i do not agree. let's talk about redistricting in texas. republican vs. democrat? outmoded thinking. i think it is going to become the still everywhere else, -- vestigial, as it is in texas soon everywhere else. the growth of latino growth, mobilization and the challenges it poses to the incumbent and operated leaderships of both political parties. this latino population growth between 2000 and 2010 is similar to latino population growth between 1990 and 2000. the red bar are latinos green is african-american, yellow is hispanic, and the smallest growth is what we call anglo in

texas. if you combine both decades over which we have combined a single seat, let's just are from there. this is the current latino majority. from the west you can see over population under 58,000 in the benchmark. in lieu of litigation congressional district 20 and gonzales, over by 20,000. 153,000. 88,000 in 16. corpus christi to brownsville the lovable 27, over populated

by 20,000. if you add up these populations you get three-quarters of an additional latino majority district. this presents an enormous challenge to the texas redistrict errors -- redistricters. here is the seventh district, the one of the proposed, which runs from san antonio to southeast docks and. they incorporated a version of it in what the state passed. this was vigorously opposed by the democratic leadership. it comes out of the district of a current anglo congressional incumbent. alex, where did you go? what is his name? how did it last? >> the new district is 36. >> he was not included, but was

planning to move in and run, and did not want to because he was in -- he was facing a strong climb lh -- primary challenge from the latino community. dallas-fort worth is where they have grown quite a bit. the anglo population dropped from -- dropped by 200,000 in the decade. here you have a latino population that runs from east to west, which is why you see the state's inactive plan carving districts north and south. districts coming from the south the district's coming from the north. the one that i want to point your attention to his district 26 which comes out of a heavily suburban anglo county, which has will recall the lightning bolt, down into the latino areas of tarrant county. you might say that this is still about person ship, is it not?

they want to break up democrats and put them in republican districts. i want to show you how carefully this line cards through to pick up the red areas, which are latino voting age majority bloc groups compared to green areas in the voting age majority bloc groups. it leaves african-americans in another district where they are diluted as well. i know that you all care about congress and that is what is sexy. anyone here from texas? hello. where are you from? college station? love it. we will be talking about southwest texas. look at the orange district in the middle. we call it little nemo. district 33 is 60.4% hispanic

citizens, next to another hispanic citizens voting age majority district, ht 34 -- hd 34. keep your eye on me know. oh, he is gone. look at what happened. they shoved the latinos over into 34, as many as they could. meanwhile has been disappeared and broken up, along with their. there he is, now he is gone. this is what was done in the states. if anyone needs the definition of retrogression, that is retrogression. not hard at all. here are the ambler's. 77 is the latino majority district. 78 is the district that is just barely latino majority, but reference by the one who is not the candidate of choice.

in an 80% latino county, you go and you get most of his latino precinct. i had to do another one of these with just the antlers. they do not line up with precincts. they do not hug the mountain, as was originally tried as an excuse but they do lineup very well with the highest concentrations of block groups. the top of that is what the state enacted. in the valley it is a very heavy latino area. there was enough overpopulation in the existing district to create a whole new district right there inside of two counties.

that big purple thing on the bottom of the map that was the additional district that cameron and hidalgo county had enough population for but was never drawn. that picture was taken by one of my witnesses who unexpectedly began to weep on the stand when he told the story as a priest, having to give the last rites to a little boy who was burned in the fire and for whom the ambulance would not come, because the streets were not paved. when we think about redistricting as maps, lines colors, and numbers that is what it is about. that is the difference between having another seat in the valley and another voice compared to not. what did you call it?

the trifecta? in the western district of texas, in san antonio, it has been a long road since july. lots of exchanges on things. we tried it into mid-september, and then we did some more briefing in another mini-trial. by that time, the state of texas was underway with its lawsuit in the d.c. federal court. i have to disagree with alan. after submitting plans that the doj would have objective -- objected to, they did find retrogression. i might be over confident in my case, but i think we would have gotten that in the house plan, at least. they filed an unsuccessful bid

-- summary judgment motion through the day before yesterday. in the middle of that we had to carry verses peres. on the surface we have early primary elections. typically held on march 6. the back of the lines under the new military voters and precinct realignments, all of that, it brings us into october 2011, which is why the district court, you might have been wondering drew plans as early as they did in november. because we have very early and election deadlines. political parties are putting a lot of pressure on the district court in san antonio because they need to hold their political convention in june. besides nominating people to run

on the ticket, they also selected delegates for the convention. so, a lot of what was being done in november, and texas, was making sure that we could stay on schedule somehow. we will see if they do. there is a new april 3 primary date that we may or may not be able to make. we are trying. one of the things, there are still a lot of racially charged polls everywhere. we cannot slap a partisan label on what is going on here. more important to us in many ways is the racially polarized voting in party primaries. because of that, non-latino democratic party incumbents are very concerned about losing the primaries to a latino challenger. not just in the congress plan, where we were proposing an additional district, but things kept happening in the house.

we still had an anglo incumbent in the district. there are no other latino majority districts around there. who was the most aggressive opponent of that? the incumbents. there are some latino republican incumbents who are concerned about the burgeoning latino population within their district, which translates into pressure to change some of their policy positions. if your district is 48% latino, you cannot run around saying that you support everyone. that is not going to work. there is a pressure to change the policy conditions and seek out the support of your latino constituents. there is some reaction in the test -- texas plan to redraw

districts that have some latinos, but not enough to change the outcome of the election for an incumbent that does not want to change policy positions in the general election. there is a lot of different plans. you can see why i say that there is a pox on both houses with respect to democrats and republicans. and the potential large amount of flexibility that latinos in texas have regarding partisanship. we have not had exactly the same experience as california. people are not completely sure on how to respond. on the part of both political parties is not to respond by reaching out for being inclusive geographically or in terms of districts but to fracture and preserve.

in july, in this state, we have formed together to accomplish the litigation. do not be fooled, there is a lot of awareness on the parts of latinos that both political parties are serving their own political ends. why is the press still reporting this as democrats against republicans? because they are very confused and not paying attention. they have not seen or recognize the increasing globalization of the latino community. they're very distracted by democrats versus republicans. no one is playing -- paying attention to what is going on in court. you understand that this is

about democrats getting screwed or republican something else, but i do not think it is about any of that. right now i feel that the vra is very vibrant, so i will not agree that it has outlived its utility. i am looking to the future. because that is what it is about. that is what it is about. my son is 15. he came with me today. he will vote soon. but not too soon. he will be voting in this decade. it is the interest that my children will also cast an undiluted vote in texas. i think it will present a

tremendous challenge with a population growth. wising up, reaching out. to have both parties knocking on your door and say that i have your vote. hopefully, that will halt the latino utilization of both party platforms. >> i wanted to give the panel it chance to respond to each other then we will take some more questions. i do not know, maybe start in reverse order. is there anything more that you wanted to ask? >> i do not think that i have any questions. [laughter] >> ok. joshua, did you have questions? >> i do not have questions right

now. >> i guess i will ask ellen if she has questions. i guess you all have answers. >> and nina was just such a force, i just want to back up with something that joshua said. i think that one of the difficulties using constitutionality questions is this claim -- why don't covered jurisdictions continue to look worse than the non- jurisdictions? pam made a powerful point this morning about the. i think that -- about that. i think that the numbers are misleading in terms of being regulated and non-regulated. one of the things that section d

obscures' is i would be concerned if the cover jurisdictions continued to have the same regulatory regime in place. i think that in some ways, if it continues to look away that it looked in 1965, it would be crazy sticking with that system. it would not be doing a good job in accomplishing that purpose. >> i would say two things that at. first, it was the situation in 1965 that authorized this. at that time, the court recognized what the justice department did. i do not think anyone here is of the opinion that the state is the same as it was in 1965. so the first point would be

that the remedy of section 5 is not justified by the current times, despite the existence of some discrimination. more importantly, the state of things today with so many black elected officials our president, the discrimination that would need to occur to distant -- disenfranchise blacks as remedied by section 5 would have to be justified by those officials themselves, on the backs of groups like the naacp and all of these other organizations that are out there fighting for the rights of minorities on a daily basis. i just do not see the deterrent effect of being covered today being justified given the state of race relations today.

the thing that has puzzled me for a long time is this question of who should decide when its usefulness is outgrown. and what is it that makes section 5 such an extreme remedy? the argument is that the state cannot put its plan into effect until it gets cleared. having to go with their hat in hand to washington, "like a bunch of beggars." is the problem somehow that federalism should be putting the burden on voters the burden of proof or the timing issue that leads people to this as an

extraordinary remedy. i know that in some sense you were attempting to figure out about the clarence. that the federal government was chopping up literacy without proof that there was anything wrong. but i never understood how that translated into section 5 pre- clearance regime being extreme. why does that seem to be the thing that the court is so focused on right now. that was just a burden of proof in timing in most cases. presumably a plaintiff would be able to challenge, and i and many of those cases challenge specifically. changing the timing and the burden of proof. i am just trying to figure out

what is it about section 5 that seems to drive supreme court justices threw a federalism revival. there is a reversal of the burden of proof and the presumption that you are not doing something where we think you are bad until you show us otherwise. one of the things i would hope to pull out of this is this notion that there is actually value for the jurisdictions themselves. that this regime, in a constitutional sense where they do not have to take responsibility. >> i wanted to mention that my most recent supreme court appeal that we did i have the sense that the supreme court was a little in different.

drawing on the plan that departed from the legislated an active plan because texas presented it as a dramatic departure from what it had been, even if it was not true. when we got to the day of argument, i sensed a very different dynamic amongst the justices and that maybe, by the time the briefing was done, they might have been realizing that there were serious things wrong with the plan. and when the chief justice roberts, said to put in the legislative plans and sort it out later the chief justice took the initiative to say that these plans were not pre-cleared and we needed to get feedback. i have the sense that maybe there was an exclusive recognition that the shifting of the burden of proof was more important than the exact reasons from that day.

>> the comments to you nina, from joshua, his point was that we would not designed section 5 the way that it was designed if we were designing it today. so, if you were designing section 5 today or were trying to design a regime to protect the interest of latino voters how would it be different from the regime that we have in place? that would have moved much faster. since the department of justice is not even getting the senate plan pre-clear right away, there would have been more of a sense of clarity from the other two

plans. they rejected the idea of going to trial in november. it would have avoided this crash and burn that we have in december. even though the district court in columbia was saying that you could not file this in november, they said they wanted to file a summary motion, bogging things down more and more. i do not know if there is anything wrong with the structure other than a series of catastrophic decisions in texas that caused the crisis. some suggested that i wanted to cause the crisis to take those plans for free. >> that seemed to be the gamble that they were making, but the gamble in the brief, though it had not been pre-cleared, being constitutional. >> but that did not work either.

i know that there is a lot of from -- publicity about striking down taxes as being bad and wrong, but i was thrilled because that said that texas could not put its plans in and in this war of attrition that we have going on, every day the texas plans that are not implemented is a day of victory for me. >> like anita bryant. >> exactly. sunshine today because we are not voting under the texas plan. >> one of the things is the unintended consequences of the voting rights act and in its initial understanding it put into effect the existing systems to make it worse. the history is any time you want a case in court, you would come up with a wonderful and tricky way of changing with oklahoma

announcing the you have three days. as they recognized in the perry case you cannot do that in redistricting. the existing plan is one that is not constitutional immediately when the census numbers dropped. there has to be a new plan put in in a system where you have not just the one-party system of the south but not even the two- party system, the truth is we have three competing interest systems in places like texas. you are guaranteed that there will be things like litigation. this creates all sorts of difficulties in the dynamics from earlier. in the prior panel, about whether you want this even done in the political process with politicians in the same way as

state legislators, we find ourselves really in a generally complicated dynamic and it makes you wonder how the supreme court will view the nature of the complications when it comes to constitutionality of the act and enforcing it. i want to give folks the opportunity to ask questions. we will bring around microphones for you. >> thank you. i wanted to ask whoever would like to comment about the recent supreme court decision of the potential effects of the arguments on constitutionality in section 5 in relation to the fact that it seemed to shift the burden to the parties in terms of pre-empting the district court, with respect to any potential violations in section 5.

essentially it sounds like the district court is not wanting to get involved, but if they do my understanding is that they have to take the texas plan. i wonder if that affects any kind of section 5, or contributing to something else. >> yes and no. with respect to texas voting rights and litigation, it is the whole story of why we need section five. the truth is that when texas became covered in 1975, in one or more of the statewide redistricting plans in the decade section 5 remained one of our most important tools to prevent discrimination.

i do not think that the supreme court at this point, that the majority could take that away from us. it has been so vital and important. the potential discrimination as well. i am not the doom and gloom person on section five. i walked out of the mud argument quite sure that we would not have the constitutionality taken away from on section five. i continue to believe that it will not be taken away from us. have things become more murky since this decision? when you get into a situation where there is a need for the local court to draw a plan without pre-clearance? yes, and we have to work it out as we go.

>> i have a question to address to the panel on the theme of the future of redistricting in light of this wonderful discussion about the texas case. fortunately, the rest of the country is not exactly like texas. in many ways, it is. we have a tremendous latino demographic growth in many places. in california, we have heard significant asian-american demographic growth as well. we have partisan conflict as part of the major political value in the redistricting process. certainly everywhere, as we do in texas. maybe not quite as extreme. it seems to me that the texas experience has been disastrous

for the dominant party and a debacle for the state from a good government standpoint. what are the lessons that you would draw from the ongoing texas litigation and political redistricting experience for other states that are not exactly like texas, but have the same issues, in the future? including the playing out of this process over the next few years. >> there is one very easy lesson to draw operating primarily to prevent the most protect -- protest form of overreaching. if texas had not over-reached quite as much as they had they would have been able to get to the court from the department of justice or the supreme court.

the numbers show that texas got four new congressional districts from the last time around. this question of going too far how far does the system pushed back that is one thing to draw out. at some point partisanship and protection becomes so grotesquely dominating in the system the system will find some way to snap back at that. a more marginal, incremental partisanship or discrimination, frankly, that will not be picked up as much in the legal process.

>> in line with my thesis section 2 discrimination and push back from the texas legislature, section 5 is no longer needed to combat those cases of discrimination. >> i would like to answer that. having litigated from 20012006, it took an awful lot out of my life and his life and the younger siblings that i had in the middle of all of that. i would prefer the burden shifting of section 5. hopefully, if it works right, it will block -- blocked the plan before going into effect. there are small institutions that are there to litigate

section 2, but it is overwhelming. certainly, i have been feeling overwhelmed over the last few months. all of these folks have been working with other plaintiff teams. i prefer the structure of section 5 and think it is still necessary in the experience we have been having in texas so far. i think it is interesting to think -- why did texas overreach? but they operated under the assumption that this institution is over? and that they thought they were not ready to express themselves this time around? there was no necessary reason to overreach quite that much. >> at the end, you mentioned that having more reflective

maps might learn to the -- might lead to the latinoizagtiontion of both party platforms. what do you think that would look like? >> hopefully there would be less race baiting. that would be the start. latino voters care a lot about the things that other voters do like the economy instead of education. one thing that is notable, the number of people the number of latino voters that personally know someone who is undocumented here without lawful presence, and the number of latino voters in the past year that have talked about immigration reform with friends families, and colleagues. i do not think that that is being well address by either political party right now.

i hope that it would reflect what latino voters are thinking about, with respect to that. >> you are taking the microphones around. >> [inaudible] >> no, i want you to take the microphones around. >> this is a question for nina, but possibly the rest of the panel in these cases. what argument -- [unintelligible] >> up the road. >> yes, michael mccall. under the proposed redistricting plans, there will no longer be white democrats. one response i am for it -- i am tempted to have to this, if this winds up being a consequence, and it might be an unfortunate but on fort -- unavoidable consequence of democrats being in a group that

is growing more slowly, a similar situation to being an african-american republican. is that right, given that response? or do you think that there is a way that redistricting in texas will ultimately lead to there being white politicians from the democratic party? >> i think you are exactly right. i think you're exactly right and would say more on the subject when the tv is on. >> taking it to one level of abstraction a single member district is going to have the consequence of seeking groups -- this will be discussed in a later presentation, but if we

have this sort of consequence when white democrats are interspersed by an overwhelmingly white areas which are heavily republican overall, it is not that there are no white democrats. it is a function of the fact that white democrats do not tend to be significantly geographically compact groups in these districts. that is, there must be some part of the state where there are a lot of white democrats there would be a district electing white democrats there. it is a function of these single member districts where groups find it harder to elect groups and are not. it was true for democrats and

asian-americans in new york city and where it is impossible. many of them live in heavily asian-american communities that are too small and too far apart from each other. driving here, driving there, it will be tough to do, crossing some districts. i think that that is a function of these districts, but not a function of making that decision. >> you are near austin. you know that there are a lot of white democrats on howin austin, but i think it is dangerous to focus on the incumbents. saying that there are just a certain number. you have to look at that district. if that is the district where they are controlling the outcome of the primary in such a way

that the latino or other voter presence in the district is not able to nominate the choice, when someone else takes a look at that district, in this case, the leadership of the texas house and senate, they may not see that as a valuable thing to preserve. >> on that last point, this goes to what you have been saying about to what extent we should view the parties. you are absolutely right looking at the party's protecting the incumbent but how did you get fewer and fewer their, with only 12 white democrats in congress in the south right now, two in texas and for the congressional delegation lloyd has term

limits. when his district flips depending on when he resigns, he will go the way of other southern white democrats. as the personnel really looks more highly correlated between race and party, you get a sort of different dynamic from the one you are suggesting. you are absolutely right latinos have greater power when they can operate at a critical group that both parties can court, what do you see as the future in texas? it seems like it is going not directly the way of california, but closer and closer. do you think that, 10 years from now, we will be making similar arguments about the percentages in the populations of these

districts? do you think that extrapolating out from that, the same districting arrangements that you're pushing for given what you know about texas, you will be asking for 10 years? >> that is the first point. achieving whatever the result is to nominate their choice, i do not make judgments about who should represent latino voters. if they want to nominate and elect someone who is purple, with a green spots, someone who is african-american latino, anglo, that is their choice and that is the perspective i view this from. as to what the numerical cut off is four different districts we use a functional analysis with lots of election data available to us. we want to strive for districts

that unable nuttiness to nominate their candidates. typically, there's not a bright line test for that. >> i wanted you to put your political scientists have on, saying that if you're there in california, we would be making different arguments. again, it depends on which part of california you are talking about. maybe the answer, because of the partisan realignment, is that actually things are getting worse and not actually better in the sense of what districts are necessary for latinos to elect the candidate of choice. maybe they're getting better because you think that over time they can rely on the areas of higher concentration. >> jumping in for a second, it seems that one of the fundamental differences between

california and texas in texas you are moving in important ways towards a system where there is a white political party and a non-wide political party. that is not the case in california at all. republicans, in part, having guest so badly that prop. 187 -- guest -- guessed so badly that prop. 187 one of the republican members of the legislature said that they were hoping to create a system in which white people looked at the system and thought that there was a party for white people and not for white people. those dynamics are different in the two states. >> that is the intention with

what you are saying, right? >> whether or not there is political diversity is up to the republican party right now. if they get their act together and start reaching out to the larger growing demographic of their state, which many republicans believe there are a lot of latinos the can vote republican. they see an alignment with certain positions of the republican party. texas is that a tipping point in terms of what political parties are going to do with all of these latinos. are democrats going to continue to fracture and fracture preserving the last shred of incumbents? or are republicans going to start knocking on doors and say that they believe in comprehensive immigration reform? or maybe there is not just one future here.

it is like the christmas carol. not the singing one the movie won. the ghost of christmas future. >> i was thinking -- like silent night? >> no, no [laughter] . i was thinking of you to help me. either the republican party is going to be weeping over their own grave, because they could not reach out to latino voters. we may see more people reaching out and doing what they need to do to have a healthy political system in texas. >> i wanted to make a quick comment. that is exactly what happened in california. i have to respectfully disagree, it is a party of whites. >> that is the thing the

democratic party was not what the republican party was. >> it is. they chose not to incorporate and have not been capable of incorporating. taxes may be going in the direction of california in the '90s. it has shifted completely. for asian americans as well, because of the policies that they have pursued and their inability to change those policies. >> my point was that these are part of a multi-racial party not to say a parties are multi- racial. >> i think we have the same problem of democrats not wanting to incorporate into the district's. term limits, ironically, kind of fixed of that. otherwise, we would be in the

exact same position of having to litigate. >> may be the panel could address the bailout provision related to section 5? if we assume that section 5 is somewhat in trouble, from a constitutional perspective, do you think the court would be able to use the bailout position to change those requirements in order to constitutionally save the voting rights act of section 5? if they brought in the requirements to bailout. >> it farcical remedy. -- it is a farcical remedy. jurisdictions that have received bailouts all of them

represented by the same civil rights attorneys that sought bailouts. i do not see bailout as the long-term solution to the constraints it is almost never available. >> i see that differently. i think that one of the most difficult questions is why. it is a difficult narrative. not taking advantage of it, i am

curious. the courts would see the numbers that have increased, but not enough to think that it has become more calibrated. i would urge the court to think about it more as there is a reason that they are not bailing out, as there are several voices that are saying no, cowards, and i am not sure what to make of that language. the system works for us and is not burdensome. as long as it is there it is critical. the burden is there get out if you want. if you do not get back to pam's point about deciding this. maybe the jurisdictions could decide for themselves. >> these guys on my left pre- empted a lot of what i was point asked.

given that the democratic party in california is losing percentages and the republican party is losing percentages, i have learned that that is due somewhat to latinos becoming independent, as they have no political voice in california. do you see a way that that is an accurate hypothesis or scenario? a way for latinos to achieve significant independent political voices, if they have no voice of all. >> we are talking about a single member district when we talk about redistricting. the question is the really whether you have a statewide voice or how you might express it but how the points will be drawn so that people can come together.

whether they will act as swing voters or whether they will mount their own candidate, i do not know. i think that the question is much more limited in single member districts. >> he is not here to answer this question but lots of people are independent but their voting behavior is quite predictable anyways. they may not register, but in a partisan election they always go republican or democrat, so it will be exactly the same as any other boater. -- any other voter. >> [inaudible] >> yes the top two primaries is the point to solve this by

them participating in the primaries? sharing a point of view, as opposed to being fractured. >> one would think speaking to the point, part of the reason is that neither party is speaking to the interest of those groups. if they are incorporating issues that those voters feel are not part of the session that would change. we know very well what it means to the people, but especially immigrant groups, it is a reflection of neither party doing the things most important to their daily lives. >> you mentioned a couple of times some of the language about discriminatory intent. i was curious about what you thought of the rest of the decision. particularly the bond and language about combining two culturally or socioeconomic a separate groups in the district

the district than no longer counting as a valid district according to the vra. you showed us charts and graphics with data on the various racial oppositions in the districts. i was curious, if you look not only at the latino cvap numbers, but also the degree of so pseudonym -- socioeconomic and cultural, and come celebrities in each district. >> when we do a provision and we are proposing a district that might be new, we have lots of late testimony. in addition to the similarities from a more quantitative point of view, it is a good idea to bring in these witnesses from different parts of the district to talk about similarities, differences, or what it is really like on the ground. i thing that it is tremendously

important to give the court a rich sense of what you're intending to put their. i am very much in the same point of view as pam with respect to some of that language. you kind of have to understand what was going on in terms of finding violations over here and what it meant about the district over there. the fact that no one was defending the first district, no one did put on evidence about whether or not people at one end or the other end had anything in common. >> there is time for one more question. >> i had a question for the panel broadly. i read a student note in the yale law journal earlier about comparing the fellow from --

fallout from integrating schools to the fight for voting districts representing racial minorities. that part of the backlash over the fight for school immigration was that you have these school degrees at that allows schools to get out with the bailout provision. these schools go back to being even more segregated than they were before. my question is centered toward the idea of the we get rid of the voting like that, if we get rid of section five and we have this history of what's happened in our schools, are we worried that the same thing is going to happen if we get rid of section five? and for josh in particular, you know, going back to the analogy that pam made earlier today, if we're interested in deterrents, if we're interested in keeping people from committing murder what is the life without parole equivalent? something that we'll have

substantial deterrent effects for these harms that you've acknowledged. and in other parts of the country. so i'd appreciate it if we could have responses to those two questions. >> it's indisputable that there is some effect from section five in that section five may prevent -- and i agree with professor capps than they know they can get something precleared without having a big political dispute. but section five was and remains an extreme remedy that completely distorts the constitutional process of our government. and that extreme remedy can only be justified under extreme circumstances and only was justified under extreme circumstances. so i don't -- i'm not as pessimistic about the state of racial affairs in america to think that with 40% of southern

legislatures being african-american or the presence of legal groups representing african-american rights or latino american rights that we can reasonably believe that we will return to a system of section five. therefore, i don't think that the extreme remedy that is section five can be constitutionally justified. just as albert said in his majority opinion. his unanimous opinion. the remedy that is section five must be justified by current political or current data, and that simply -- he was skeptical whether that was there. i say it's not there, that that data was only present possibly maybe two, but it is not justified by the record that congress assembled in 2006. >> i think two things would

happen. maybe certainly more actually. the african-american faces that you see in southern legislatures would likely disappear because they're from majority minority districts in lots of places. it's the voter that's keeping that there. and one of the differences you do see in jurisdictions is that it's more polarized. i think that's going to play out more effectively without section five in place to be a guard against that. i guess the sort of far back -- section two could take care of it if nina has more strength than any human on earth. i worry that when section five goes down, it goes down with an analysis that i think applies on to section 2. it's the next up with on the chopping block. it seems very easy to make the claim you don't have the regional differences. i can write that brief. i know what it looks like, that

argument. so it's not an end will. i do think we will see a difference, and the school analogy is a fascinating one. one of the things that's interesting about the school analogy is not just getting out of the desegregation decree, but actually the schools that fought the solution. kansas city, detroit did it. and it's an interesting analogy to bail out. because i actually like the supervision and it does certain things that are useful for them. i think that's looked at with skepticism and it ought not to be. but there's a reason that localities will embrace federal reason that are actually causative and good and i'll say empowering to them. this takes us back to kind of where this panel began, so maybe it's a good place for the panel to end, which is do i think that if the section five were struck down that the entire gains of the second reconstruction would be rolled back? no, i don't think so. i think some of those gains are cemented into place in and are

enduring, and the american consensus on the right to vote has changed in a powerful way. do think there will be lots and lots of low level discrimination that is stopped by section five that will occur? yes. and this goes beyond the panels here, which have been about congressional redistricting the state legislature. people watch that stuff carefully. but what section five also does is prevents changes in polling places in local elections. i had a case in arkansas, which is not a cover jurisdiction, where they move the poll in place in the largest black precinct 10 times in three years. several times outside of the district. will there be more restrictive registration practices? yes. will states come up with restrictions on absentee ballots? yes. will there be more voter i.d. laws? yes. will there be a lot of regrowing an accusations and dean exizations of these? i think it's far more likely to

happen in a world where section five doesn't exist than in a world in which it does, and that will require and put a huge burden on the very few lawyers who do voting rights work, among whom i hope to see many of you all in the future. so we'll take a break here and come back for the last panel in five minutes. 10 minutes. [applause]

>> coming up here on c-span, president obama honors the 16 winners at the 2011 national medal of arts and national humanities medal at the white house. a look at the constitutionality at the affordable health care act, with the virginia and massachusetts attorneys general. at 8:00 eastern, a former navy seal talks about the killing of osama bin laden. he wasn't there, but he wrote a best-selling book about it. >> tonight on c-span, former new york governor eliot spitzer joins a debate about whether to prosecute wall street banks for mortgage fraud. >> i almost hate to bring up occupy wall street, but they had a sign down there that actually was very accurate. it said we will know corporations are people when texas executes one. [laughter]

the problem we have right now is we have given corporations all the upside, but none of the downside. we have given corporations all the rights and privileges that we extend to individuals, and yet when it comes to holding them accountable because of the diffusion of responsibility, because of the layers and buffers built in by lawyers accountants, all doing their job in good faith, it is very difficult to ascribe criminal intent, and so just as in the financial side, we said you keep the upside and we'll guarantee you too big to fail on the downside. in the criminal context, we have said you do bad things, we don't don't have a way of holding you responsible. >> see his remarks as part of our president's day lineup. it also includes former navy seal chuck ferrer on the mission that resulted in the killing of osama bin laden. and the facebook page widely considered to have influenced the egyptian revolution. it all starts tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span.

>> presidents and the presidency are featured prominently in c-span's programming throughout the yeemples as the nation celebrates president's day, there are several online resources that we have here at c-span that can help you learn more about each president. we've put together a special page on our video library at c-spanvideo.org that provides links to these resources. the link is located on the right side of the c-span video library home page and when you click on it, you see all the different resources that you have that can help you learn more about the presidents starting with a series we produced in 1999 called the american presidents: life portraits. this includes links to at the time the 4 -- 42 presidents we profiled in individual programs as well as a page of specially commissioned presidential portraits by chaz fagan. we've also put together a link to 19 different "booknotes"

programs. these are hour-long interviews with the authors of presidential biographies. also on the page is a link to a series of programs where we visited the 13 different presidential libraries. more recently, we produced a series of programs that profile 13 different men who ran for the president, but didn't win. the series is called "the contenders" and we have a link to the website where you can watch each of the 14 programs. we've also put together a link to more than 400 different c-span programs throughout the years that deal with the presidents or the presidency. and if you're interested in this year's campaign for the white house, you can visit our campaign 2012 website as well. all of the links are available at c-spanvideo.org. >> president obama last week honored the 16 winners of the

2011 national medal of arts and national humanities medal. among the recipients, actor al pacino former u.s. poet lawyer yet rita dove and country music singer mel tillis. the awards were presented in the east room of the white house. >> the recipients of the 2011 national medal of arts. [applause]

the recipients of the 2011 national humanities medal. [applause]

♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. and mrs. michelle obama. ♪ [cheers and applause] >> thank you! hello, everybody. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you so much. thank you, everybody. please please, have a seat. thank you. thank you so much for joining us in this celebration of the arts and the humanities.

two outstanding public servants for the arts are here. rocco anderson. there he is right here. chairman of the national endowment of the arts. and jim leech. where is jim? good to see you, jim. we also have two good friends and co-chairs of the president's committee on the arts and the humanities who are here. margo lyons and george stevens. and i also want to acknowledge one of our honorees, ho unfortunately could not make it. ever the artist, andre watts had a concert to give in salt lake city. give him a big round of applause in advance. [applause] michelle and i love this event. it's something we look forward to every single year, because it's a moment when america has a

chance to pay tribute to extraordinary men and women, who have exceled in the arts and the humanities and who along the way have left an indelible mark on american culture. that's all the honorees we see here today. we honor your talents. we honor your careers and your remarkable contributions to this country that we love. throughout our history america has advanced not only because of the will of our citizens, not only because of the vision of our leaders, or the might of our military. america has also advanced because of paintings and poems stories and songs. the dramas and the dances that provide us comfort and instilled in us confidence, inspired in us a sense of mutual understanding and a calling to always strive for a more perfect union.

emily dickinson wrote "i dwell in possibility." and so does the american spirit. that's who we are as a people. and that's who our honorees are. each of you have traveled a unique path to get here and your fields represent the full spectrum of the arts and humanities. with us are actors and poets authors, singers philosophers, sculptors, cure -- cure -- cure ray or thes historians. we also have an economist, which we don't always get onstage. [laughter] but what connects everyone one of you is that you dwell in possibilities. you create new possibilities for all of us and it's a special trait and it assigns you a

special task, because in moments of calm, as in moments of crisis in times of triumph as in times of tragedy, you helped guy our growth as a people. the true power of the arts and the humanities is that you speak to everyone. there's not one of us here who hasn't had their beliefs challenged by a writer or their knowledged deepened by a historian's insights or their sagging spirits lifted by a singer's voice. those are some of the most endearing and memorable moments in our lives. equal to the impact you have on each of us every day as individuals is the impact you have on us as a society and we are told we're divided as a people, and then suddenly the arts have this power to bring us together and speak to our common condition.

recently, i have been reminded of walt whitman's famous poem "i hear america singing." it's a poem that with simple eloquence spotlights our diversity, and our spirit of rugged individual wallism the messy energized dynamic sense of what it is to be an american. and whitman lifts up the voices of mechanics and carpenters, masons and boatmen schumakers, wood cutters, the mother and the young wife at work, each singing what belongs to him or her and to none else. that's true that we all have songs in our souls that are only ours. we all have a unique part in this story of america. but that story is bigger than any one of us. and it endures because we are all heirs to a fundamental truth

that out of many are all one. this incredible multitude. i hear america singing today. i hear america singing through the artists and the writers that we honor this afternoon. the men and women who are following in the footsteps of whitman and hemmingway, souza and armstrong aikens and rock well. but i also hear america singing through the artists and writers who will be sitting here a few decades from now with another president. the students in denver who recently wrote a play about teenage homelessness, or the kids in grand rapids who designed a mural to bring joy to a struggling community. they're singing what whitman called strong melodious songs. somewhere in america, the next great writer is wrestling with the first draft. an english paper. [laughter] somewhere the next great actor is mustering up the courage to try out for that school play.

somewhere the next great artist is doodling on their homework. somewhere the next great thinker is asking their teacher why not? they're out there right now dwelling in possibility. so as we honor the icons of today, we also have to champion the icons of tomorrow. they need our support. we need them to succeed. we need them to succeed as much as we need engineers and scientists. we also need artists scholars. we need them to take the mantel from you, to do their part to disrupt our views and to challenge our presumptions and most of all to steer in us a need to be our better selves. the arts and the humanities do not just reflect america they shape america, and as long as i

am president, i look forward to making sure they are a priority for this country. [applause] it is -- [applause] it is now my distinct privilege to present these medals to the award winners who we have here today. and as the citations are read, i'm sure you've gotten extensive instructions from our military. >> the national medal of arts recipients. will barnett.

[applause] >> the 2011 national medal of arts to will barnett for his contribution as an american painter and teacher. widely celebrated for a lifelong celebration of abstraction and geometry to merry sophistication and emotion with beauty and form, mr. barnett has been a constant force in the visual arts world. [applause]

>> rita dove. [applause] >> the 2011 national medal of arts to rita dove for her contributions to american letters and her service as poet lar yet of the united states from 1993 to 1995. her beauty,ly sy. and politics, cultivated popular interests in the arts. [applause]

>> al pacino. [applause] >> the 2011 national medal of arts to al pacino, for his iconic contributions to american film and theatre as actor and director. recognized around the world for his signature intensity on the silver screen, mr. pacino stands among america's most accomplished artists. [applause]

>> emily rauh pulitzer. [applause] the 2011 national medal of arts to emily rauh pulitzer for her contributions as a curator, art collector, and philanthropist. the founder of the pulitzer prize for the arts, she has broadened the impact of the arts in our national life by bringing great works into the public spirit. [applause]

martin puryear. [applause] >> the 2011 national medal of arts to martin puryear for his reflections on history, culture and identity through sculpture. mr. puryear's mastery of wood, stone, and metal and his commitment to manual skill offer a stirring counterpoint to an increasingly digital world. [applause] mel tillis. [applause]

the 2011 national medal of arts to mel tillis for his contributions to country music. with over 1,000 songs and more than 60 albums to his name, mr. tillis' unique blend of warmth and humor distinguishes him as one of the most inventive singer song writers of his generation. [applause] accepting on behalf of the sumplet s. -- the u.s.o., sloan gibson. [applause] the 2011 national medal of arts to united service organization, for lifting the spirits of service members and the families through their arts.

the u.s.o. continues to support members of the armed forces by bringing iconic american artists to share the sights of home with troops stationed around the world. [applause] the national humanities medal recipients. kwame anthony appiah. [applause] the 2011 national humanities metal to kwame anthony appiah for his contributions to philosophy and the pursuit of truth in the contemporary world.

his write sheds light on the idea of the individual. [applause] john ashbery. [applause] the 2011 national humanities medal to john ashbery for his contributions to american letters. one of the new york school poets, his work has profunedly influenced generations of writers and garnered awards spanning the pulitzer prize.

[applause] robert weiner. [applause] >> robert darnton. [applause] the 2011 national humanities medal to robert darnton for his commitment to making knowledge accessible to everyone. an imminent cultural historian he has pursued his vision for a national library of digitized books.

[applause] andrew delbanco. the 2011 national humanities medal to andrew delbanco for his insight into the american character, past and present. in writing the spans of literature to melville, he has continually informed our understanding of what it means to live in america. [applause] accepting on behalf of national history day, kathy govern.

the 2011 national humanities medal to national history day for sparking passion for history in students across our country. every year, national history day inspires more than half a million young americans to write, perform research, and document the human story. [applause] charles rosen. [applause]

the 2011 national humanities medal to charles rosen for his contributions as a pianist and a scholar, demonstrating a rare ability to join artistry to the history of culture and ideas, his writings on classical composers and the romantic tradition highlight how music evolves and remains a vibrant, living art. [applause] teofilo ruiz. [applause]

the the 2011 national humanities medal to teofilo ruiz for his outstanding scholarship in history, an accomplished teacher and author, dr. ruiz has captivated students and scholars by deepening their knowledge of medieval spain and europe and by expanding the role terror has played in society for centuries. [applause] ramon saldivar. the 2011 national humanities medal to ramon saldivar for his bold exploor ration of identity along the border. in his studies of literature and the development of the novel in

europe and america dr. saldivar highlights the cultural and literary markings that divide and unite us. [applause] amartya sen. [applause] the 2011 national humanities medal to amartya sen for his insights into the causes of poverty, famine, and injustice. by applying philosophical thinking to questions of policy he has changed how standards of living are measured and increased our understanding of how to fight hunger. [applause]

>> let's give a big hand to our award winners today. [applause] well, we are just blessed to have this incredible array of talent and inspiration with us here today. we are so glad we had the opportunity to make this small gesture of appreciation and thanks to all that you have contributed to us. each and every day you continue to inform who we are as a people, and we could not be

prouder of everything that you've done and we know you've got a lot more to do. so keep at it. in the meantime, for everybody who's gathered here today, we have a wonderful reception, so please enjoy. the food is usually pretty good around here. [applause] the music is even better. i think the marine band will probably be out there playing a few tunes. and again, we are very thankful to all the honorees out here today for everything that you have done for our country. congratulations. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seats until the president, mrs. obama have departed. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪

>> coming up here on c-span, a look at the constitutionality at the affordable health care act. at 8:00 eastern, a former navy seal talks about the killing of osama bin laden. he wasn't there, but he did write a best-selling book about it. that's followed by eliot spitzer on prosecuting wall street banks after the mortgage crisis. >> tonight on c-span, hear from the man whose facebook page was widely considered to have influenced the egyptian revolution. >> i believe the internet can help change the world, and i know this sounds very cliche, but that's just how i see

things. and working for google, working for a company that does mass scale projects online in our region will make a difference. i remember in the interview, the typical why do you want to work for google? it wasn't the food. [laughter] it was really -- the thing is, what i liked about google, the democracy of, you know offering people information. people living here do not understand the value that we all have equal access to information. in oppressing regimes, most of the people would only get streams of propaganda flowing into their brains and this is how the regime could sustain besides making everyone scared. >> see his remarks as part of our primetime lineup. it also includes former navy seal chuck ferrer on the mission that resulted in the killing of osama bin laden, and debate on whether to prosecute wall street banks for mortgage fraud with

former new york governor eliot spitzer and assistant attorney general lanny brewer. it also begins tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> so you want somebody in there who's not a career politician. somebody who really cares about what they're doing for the people and who isn't so much concerned about their career. >> i think understanding how people try to live in this country. we're not unified. we say that we're one. we're not. we're divided in a sense of our thoughts and we need somebody that's going to be able to help us bridge those differences because they're going to continue to exist. >> and how do you think the president can do that? how can he show that? >> well, primarily he needs to listen. and he needs to be able to bring together people who he knows are able to make those bridges because some aren't, and some are. i think a good president would know the president that could do that.

>> honest and hard working. they always try to make things better. >> and how old are you? >> i'm 10. >> humility, integrity generosity and a sense of humor. >> and how do you think a president can show a sense of integrity, for example? >> well, thankfully, not being corrupt and having done anything in his past. but at the same time we scrutinize them so much that if a president ever flicked a cigarette butt, we might find out about it. it's almost ludicrous and we forget that they're actually human and that they may have done things in the past that they're not proud of, because haven't we all? but i just think their record by that point they've got to be 35. and of course obama is the youngest. so most of the time, they're in their 40's or 50's or older so

they need to have shown a track record that they've done things with integrity and that there's not skeletons in their closet, that sort of thing. it's hard to do. but i would hope that most of the people that are running, albeit we found that they're not, sadly enough, but most of the people that are running do have some integrity and do have some true feeling of wanting to give back to their community. >> now a look at the constitutionality of the affordable health care act. the virginia and massachusetts attorneys general debated the issue at the national press club in washington, d.c. the supreme court hears oral arguments next month in two cases challenging the health care law. this is about and hour and 15 minutes. >> welcome to the national press club news maker series.

the national press club is the nation's leading professional organization for journalists. i am bob weiner, today's event coordinator and a national press club news makers committee member. today, two outstanding and prominent state attorneys general, martha coakley of massachusetts, and ken cuccinelli of virginia will lead a national press club news maker. the affordable health care act, constitutional or not, as a prelude to the march 14 consideration of the law. ken cuccinelli brings personal experience with his state's legislation and national leadership concerning the federal health care lawsuit, while martha coakley has deep knowledge of the massachusetts legislation and will discuss state and federal law. cuccinelli filed the first constitutional lawsuit to the supreme court against the affordable health care act before 26 other state attorneys general. while coakley is the expert in her home state, so called romney

care's legal basis and how it does or does not serve as precedent ifer the federal law which followed. coakley filed a brief with the supreme court. re-elected to her second term as attorney general in 2010, martha coakley has devoted her career to protecting children and public safety, standing up for consumers and taxpayers, fighting for equality, prosecuting dangerous criminals and protecting consumers, civil rights and the environment. she has recently been appointed to the president's fraud and task force and today has a separate announcement. in fact, both of these attorney generals on this very matter. ken cuccinelli was elected attorney general of virginia and sworn into office january 2010. prior to serving as attorney general, he served in the senate of virginia from 2002 to january 2010. as a state senator and private attorney, he worked to improve the commonwealth's mental health system. he has also been a champion for

citizens' property rights. he made government more transparent and accountable by sponsoring a law to put the state's detailed budget online in a format that citizens could understand. mr. cuccinelli is proud to protect consumers from scams and fraud, takes sexually violent predators out of communities. and by the way, my wife found a correction. your website said the most violent predators. she said doesn't he do all of them? out of communities. put gang members in jail and prosecute medicaid fraud. like ms. coakley in massachusetts, cuccinelli is often talked about for a higher virginia office, but that is not today's subject. the attorneys general have been invited to address several facets of the case the supreme court is taking up including the health care mandate, the tax basis, the general welfare aspect expansion of medicaid, severability the laws provisions and other areas. the supreme court is preparing for three days of consideration

march 26 through 28 with 5 1/2 hours of debate and a possible june decision, so the press club event today will be a timely preamble. we did not call the forum today a debate, but that's essentially what it is. with these two powerhouses and national leading attorneys general on opposing sides. the difference is that after their opening presentations, the media will have at them and we will try to keep the questioning even and fair. please only media and then national press club members ask questions until and unless those run out. we'll see what happens during the hour. our humble hope is that today's forum will serve as a primer for the media and the public for what the supreme court may consider as arguments for and against the bill and its provisions. many thanks to the staffs of both attorney generals coakley and cuccinelli for their competent liaison and follow through with the club in arranging today's event. as a former white house and congressional staffer myself for over 20 years, i really appreciate your work. i also want to introduce my wife pat, if you'd stand up, who

helped with your website. the event staffer today. specifically with ms. coakley cory wellford, megan silverbird. mr. cuccinelli sarah kennedy noah wall, carolyn gibson, they've all been fantastic. from the national press club, you saw joe ann booth. i want to thank ron for all his support. automarcum rick and incoming teresa warner. from my team i want to introduce in addition to my wife rich mann. jamie, who did a lot of work. rebecca vanderlynn. my longtime executive assistant. perry brooks lifetime friend. we were at each other's weddings. here from western new england news service. and so we are ready to go.

in terms of questions, what we will do is after each attorney general makes the presentation, we'll go to questions. what i'd like to do is have you come to the podium and then rebecca, you'll get the names and identifications of the people as they come. we're going to set this up as a mic for questions. so the audience would please come -- c-span requested that there be sound instead of that usual faint you don't hear it question on television. so we'll have the questions come to the mic and then we'll ask the questions that way. so we'll lead off with ms. coakley. >> and turn cell phones off right? >> yes. >> i appreciate the opportunity. i think this will be fun than arguing in front of the supreme court. but we have to be pretty good because we only have 15 minutes. they've got eight hours to make their case. we will try and do that. i thank you, bob, for the invitation to the press club today. and to ken for joining me in

this lively -- i assume lively debate about health care reform and the supreme court's consideration of its constitutionality. i can't imagine two better attorneys general to do this. since i'm from massachusetts and he's from virginia, i'm going to be the john adams to ken's thomas jefferson. since representatives from our states were involved 45 years ago in writing the constitution, we happen to have a different view on this, but i think we'll be good representatives of those different views. before i highlight why i believe and why i think the supreme court will find that the patient protection and affordable care act, what i'll refer to as the a.c.a. is constitutional. with a specific focus and the focus on the individual mandate, i'd like to talk briefly about what kinds of things we've been up to in the bay state relative to health care.

it was stated that a single courageous state may if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel social, and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. now, massachusetts's experiment in health care reform five years ago has been recognized as a smaller version, but clearly a prototype of what the a.c.a. is. so what's come out of our laboratory in massachusetts? by some accounts, you would think it was a frankenstein. but i would suggest to you -- and i want to talk about how it's been more successful frankly, than scary. access, cost quality. ensuring two of those three is relatively easy, but all three, not so much. this had been and still is our challenge and our goal, and it is a work in progress. there's no doubt about that. but i think the facts demonstrate that whether than proving what massachusetts has done is a risk to the rest of the country, massachusetts as a

test laboratory has a lot to offer. i want you to come back with me to massachusetts circa 2004 and 2006. 2006 is the year our reform law was passed. mitt romney was the governor of massachusetts. he actually had a massachusetts license plate. although we think that in these days the new hampshire plate that says live free or die is probably more to his liking. we, like many states were confronted with a health care cost crisis. the rate of uninsured in massachusetts was somewhere between 10% and 12%, better than most states even though. but the cost of caring for uninsureds in massachusetts topped $1 billion and the rate of increase was on a spiral that seemed unsustainable. we also had the free writer problem, and we all know there's no free lunch. there's no such thing as a free lunch. and there really is no such thing as a free rider, because somebody pays. healthy people were opting out of coverage or opting in and out

only when they knew they were going to require coverage and those opt-outs of coverage skewed the risk pool and they also drove up premiums for everybody else in massachusetts. the so called free care of 8% to 10% a year, and the 8% end of year escalation of our health insurance premiums, threatened to cripple our system. and so in massachusetts there was a broad coalition of stake holders who decided to focus on solving this problem. that included political leaders from both sides of the table. if you remember the picture, you may not, but if you remember the picture of the signing, there was governor romney right with senator ted kennedy, and we had our labor unions and business. we had not for profits and for profits. and we had our business and consumer groups ready to say this is problem, we all have an interest in tackling and we're going to do it. the importance of this coalition in massachusetts cannot be understated in solving this

problem. and particularly, the supportive groups like our boston chamber of commerce. so it's important also to know that we purposefully did this in two stages. we said we will get everybody covered first and then we will tackle cost. that was purposeful and the second phase of that is still ongoing, tackling the cost. having to answer questions about this unlimited to 15 minutes, but it is important i think to understand what our framework was and exactly what we're able to accomplish. four pieces of the bill that are important that you'll recognize if you're familiar with the a.c.a., we demanded individual responsibility in the form of the individual mandate. this was the massachusetts parallel to the a.c.a. individual mandate. it is the feature that seems to inspire the most venom about the a.c.a. but in 2006 in massachusetts, it looked like a pretty good way to keep government out of health care. how soon we forget. it was only six years ago. it's also notable that governor romney at the time certainly not only thought that that

individual mandate was constitutional, he believed it was good public policy. many of us in massachusetts still think that it is. secondly, we demanded responsibility based on the size of the business. if you had 11 or fewer employees, certain things kick in. if you have more than 11, there's other responsibility. third, we expanded our subsidized coverage for our poorest residents and that's how we started to fill in the uninsured gaps. expand coverage for people on one end and make sure those who could afford insurance were buying it. finally, we established our own exchange to assist if implementing the law or commonwealth connector. as we consider the legal issues and the principal legal issue is whether congress had a rational basis to enact the a.c.a. and the individual mandate, we don't need to do that in a vacuum. we can see from the actual experience we've had in massachusetts that there is strong support for congress' rational basis, and their choice

to require an individual mandate. first of all, let me tell you, in massachusetts we've achieved a dramatic increase in access to health care coverage. we have the highest health care access rate in the united states with over 98% of our residents insured. the national rate of health coverage is about 15 points lower and there are many states that have a lower uninsured rate. we've seen overall economic benefits for this state. a sharp decline on the amount of spending on care. $300 million that's 33% less than what we were spending on that in 2006. we've seen improved care. quality of care. significantly fewer adults report health needs due to cost. for instance dental care is one of them and there's been a great reduction in the emergency room care. i think we all agree that emergency rooms is an inefficient and an expensive way to provide primary care. we've cut that because of what we've done in massachusetts. and insurance premiums have

fallen dramatically for individuals in the nongroup market in massachusetts. while individual premiums grew 14% nationally from 2006 to 2009 ours fell by 40%. that's significant. as we address other cost issues, and we have that same coalition i spoke about, we're looking at transparency and market dysfunction and prevention as ways since we have everybody in short to bring cost down and we are doing that successfully in massachusetts. so with five years of experience and these results massachusetts is uniquely positioned to speak to the actual economic effects of a comprehensive reform that includes an individual mandate. as for the constitutionality of that i firmly believe that it is not even a close call. and i believe that under commerce clause analysis or especially under the necessary and proper clause analysis, the supreme court can and should

uphold the a.c.a. the only way for this supreme court to invalidate the individual mandate under the commerce clause is to reverse at least 70 years of clear precedent. congress, of course, we know is recently as 2005 -- that's the third prong. that's the one that we agree this comes under. it is for congress, not the courts to determine whether "activities taken in the aggregate substantially affect interstate commerce." the court's task is only to determine if congress had a rational basis for that conclusion in passing this bill. and congress is given broad presumption. it's not just a polite nicety, that there's a rational basis for a bill that they pass. it's not just a theory. look to massachusetts. first, the courts long held that the business of insurance is

within the commerce clause authority. secondly, the power to regulate scommers -- commerce reaches "even practices affecting commerce," although it's not unlimited, that reach is pretty broad. that has been upheld for 70 years, established back in 194 . when you think about whether this should be established back in 1942, considered former marie kilbourne when you think this should be upheld. that center around the right of congress. under congress clause authority to manage the participation of one individual farmer in the national wheat market. that case, and cases following set legal precedent for the past 70 years. they have been cited by the supreme court, including members of this court, to uphold the authority of congress to regulate and national marketplace. in health care, every person in the u.s. has or will be involved in health care marketplace services. in 2009 alone, over 80% of people in the united states were treated in our healthcare system.

someone has to pay for that health care. the free rider may not be paying, but he is sure riding along. how are they any different from pharma kilbourne? they are not. even though a free rider may have a de minimus of fact, they add up, and that the national health care markets. congress has an interest and ability to require free riders to purchase coverage in a way that is necessary and proper for the marketplace. unless you are prepared to say the case should be overturned, and all cases following, the aca is constitutional. my colleague will say that in activity -- he is wrong and you not have to listen to me. if you listen to the analysis and decision by two conservative justices, one appointed by reagan and another president bush, they both sound reject this analysis as being

irrelevant to whether congress had commerce clause authority. rather, they talk about behavior in the marketplace, rather than activity or an activity. my colleague also believes this is an invasion of a liberty interest. i respectfully disagree with that. he believes this is the equivalent of forcing people to buy a particular car. it is the equivalent of requiring people to have a car and drive a car to buy car insurance if you want to use that analogy. no one has suggested requiring the purchase of car insurance if you are driving a car is unconstitutional. congress had a rational basis for concluding that free riding by individuals had a substantial effect on interstate commerce and that of reducing or eliminating free riding was a help for regulation of the healthcare market as a whole. even if you do not want to include it in the commerce clause -- and i believe the court can and should -- do have

a tough argument to say it is not constitutional under the necessary and proper clause. that clearly supports an individual mandate. it is a requirement to mandate many aspects of the aca, not only banning discrimination in health care based on status. in other markets, the individual mandate is a way to make sure those elements of the statute can be affection with it. congress found a man it was essential to creating perspective help ensure its markets in which improved health insurance products that are guaranteed or sold to not exclude coverage of pre-existing conditions. that determination places the individual mandate squarely within congress's authority under the necessary and proper clause. in conclusion, there are very real and important policy decisions over health care reform. we have had those in massachusetts. we do not always agree on them, and this discussion should and will continue in this country

but these are policy discussions, not questions of constitutionality. and discussions should be carried out in legislatures, the press, and manifest did in elections. not every policy agreement deserves to be a constitutional challenge. wouldn't it be more productive to put our energy into tackling the problem of health care cost and quality? congress has made a decision. those decisions are squarely within its authority. i hope the supreme court will see this debate and through that lens, but i suggest to you, if it does not, it would make the score the most activist, interventionist court in a long time. i look forward to my colleague mr. cuccinelli's remarks, and i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you, and the national

press club, for hosting us. i am pleased to be here with attorney general coakley and all of you. this is a critically important question for our country that we are facing here in the next few months, and that the supreme court will deal with directly at the end of march. we will hear from them by the end of june about their conclusion. this legislation relates to health care and health insurance. the litigation relates to liberty. there is a distinction. the federal health care bill necessitates the dramatic destruction of liberty in this country. we are focusing today on the individual mandate that all of us must by government-approved health insurance. however, in the last three weeks, we have seen more evidence of the necessity for

the implementation of this legislation, that liberty be crushed, and that is the hhss of pay, that regardless of their hundreds of years of history in this country, of the government leaving them to practice their faith consistent with their conscience, this bill does not allow for that. it should surprise no one, even as shocking as that is given the invasion of liberty that this bill this necessitates. i would also note, the litigation going on is an example of federalism in action. we are familiar with the separation of powers between the judicial, executive and legislative branches, which the founders set up to keep the government from becoming too powerful, to tyrannical. it is an internal check.

federalism is what i think of as a vertical check between the government and states, and it is two ways. it is built in the form of tension. what you see with the states suing the federal government is an attempt to check the government overstepping the boundaries of the constitution. that system of federalism was set up to preserve the very liberties that the government was founded, and that we broke away from great britain, to establish. over half the states are suing the federal garment today to protect the constitution on the federal government. that is what the founders had in mind when they're outside of the constitution. he walks right through that, right through what that is part of the goal with the federalist system put in place. -- it was the first state to bring suit and the first state

to get a ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional. our argument is that the government can regulate commerce. however, they cannot command you into commerce. they cannot compel you into commerce. the government has never ever under the guise compel americans to buy a product or service. that has never happened in our history. we have these questions and hasn't been a case like this before the supreme court because the government has never attempted to exercise a power like this before.

we look back to determine what were the intended parameters of the commerce clause. what do they intend the government to do and what did they intend to block it from doing. the colonial period the lead up prior to the american revolutionary war. we were boycotting british goods. that was heavily entrenched in virginia and massachusetts and continued up to the war. many of the royal governors as well as officials on the other side of the atlantic wrestled with whether or not that boycott was treason or not. a very significant question, particularly if you were a boycotter. the conclusion was that it was not treason.

in some respects it came up close to the line but it was not treason. that is an acknowledgement that the colonists rebelled against that they cannot compel us to buy a product or a set of products. but we have a president who believes he can. that is how historic week on president at the exercise of power is. it is not analogous to any other existing case that the supreme court has seen before. the congress could have taxed americans to achieve their policy goals in this bill. medicare is a great example of this. thtey tax us all, is what the supreme court views this as. they take that money in and

spend it on health care. but they did not have the political will to passed the monster of a tax that would be necessary to pay for the federal health-care legislation and the implementation. the political will to not exist to pass that tax. so they look for a gimmick. go back to a computer and google up president obama, george stephanopoulos, it is not a tax. the interview in which the president says this is not a tax increase. all my opponents say everything is a tax increase. we filed suit.

he sent his lawyers into court and said, this is a tax. really? judges have asked counsel for the federal government -- what am i supposed to do, counsel with the fact that your side argued this is not a tax and now you walk into court concern that you will lose on the commerce clause and say it is a tax. there is no good answer to that. commerce at another way to achieve the policy goals. they chose to set up a legislative gimmick that is outside the constitution. it is an attempt to compel people into commerce so they can regulate them.

read it the commerce clause. the government regulate commerce that already exists. it has other a former powers like raising an army out of nothing. that is why the draft is a constitutional. the individual mandate is not constitutional. when he was running for president, the president commenting about hillary clinton's health care mandate he said if things were that easy, i could mandate everybody buy a house and that would solve the problem of homelessness. it does not. he noted that is not a power to the government. he and his lawyers now say otherwise. your decision, your thoughts to do nothing, you take no activity at all, it is regulable under the commerce clause as economic activity.

this is what shows up in the commerce clause cases since the new deal. there are four primary cases. two have been won by the bigger government side. that notion of regulating economic activity runs to all the case law. if deciding to do nothing -- the decision is your decision not to buy something. if that is eight regulable act that is a regulation of inactivity.

thought, yes. activity, no. there is nothing they cannot regulate under the commerce clause. the constitution set up a government of limited authority. people as close by as professor turley of george washington university, a constitutional scholar who predicted the government would win, said that federalism will be dead. make no mistake about the consequences. the federal government has never identified a constitutional boundary for their power if the individual mandate is constitutional. that is why this case is about liberty, not health care. if you can be ordered to buy a car, asparagus, a gym membership -- the examples the judge came up with.

if they order you to buy a car it will be a gm car. i know it will be a chevy equinox. i own a chevy equinox. that is not the way government has ever worked. if they can order you to buy this product, they can order you to buy any product. former filburn grew 23 acres of wheat, not 11. he fed the other 12 acres of

wheat to his hog. they withdrew his demand for wheat from the market. he engaged in activity that affected the market. in this case, you were doing nothing. the commerce clause reaches very far today. once you engage in anything commercial, chances are very high that the commerce clause will reach you. it has not been used to compel you into commerce. this is unprecedented.

the limited government states to prevail in this case, this requires not the change of one bit of supreme court law. we are within wicker v filburn. this requires a radical expansion of federal power under the commerce clause. the ability to compel americans into commerce is a dramatic expansion of the power the federal government currently has under the commerce clause. there are three bases for jurisdiction. this is an area the congress can legislate. both sides agree that we are under the third of the three bases and that is that activities that affect interstate commerce may be regulated under the commerce clause.

it is debatable on the supreme court whether that basis for jurisdiction should even exist. both sides agreed that that is the one we are under in this case. it requires activities. not future activities. someday you'll get health care. on that day, your activity may be regulated. once you've entered congress -- this is a hard area because health care is so personal to people and we want to see the system improve. no improvement would be worth the sacrifice of the liberties that so many americans and died

for over the history of this country and that the founders of this country worked so spectacularly well to establish, especially the ones from virginia. but we have a lot of history represent it in our states our commonwealths. james madison was the primary author of what we're now debating. there's a reason to read his portions of the federalist papers. we're arguing about the outreach of the foundational power of the federal government and its exercise in a way that has never happened before. the comment about behavior in the marketplace, i would suggest brings you right back to the notion of having activities to regulate rather than being able to compel the activities. she used the example although

insurance. medicare and social security's are covered by taxing and spending for the general welfare. auto insurance is a power that the states have. the states may compel the purchase of health insurance. we have a 10th amendment. we have limited the powers. the state's command you to purchase of auto insurance as a condition of the privilege of having a driver's license or driving on our roads. that is a state exercise of power. there are many misconceptions like that. i want to thank the national press club and i think this kind of constructive discussion is a very beneficial to americans and to america. thank you for being here to participate.

>> rich, could you set up the stand mike? people can comment identify themselves. let me lead off the questioning. you both made outstanding presentations for and against the mandate. what still needs to be addressed is the provisions of the bill and the question if the court were -- you can respond to what mr. cuccinelli said. if the court were to separate the mandate from the provision and allow that, and now you have a situation where you have millions of kids covered under parents plan already and they are thrilled about that.

you have seniors who are thrilled that there don't hall is being squashed and they are paying less for prescription drugs. you have no caps and oversight of the insurance companies. 85% of the premiums have to go to benefits. we have the doubling of insurance premiums every 10 years. you have some provisions. the american people are thrilled with the specific provisions but they have questions on the mandate and the concept of the bill. so you have a split personality by the american people. should the court allow severability? >> i think that so far the courts have ruled that it is severable. i think there would have to be a response to find other ways

to pay for the other pieces of the bill that people do want and are important for health care. that issue will be addressed and i think it will be upheld. let me address one thing that ken said. he said as long as you're no longer in the health-care marketplace, we cannot regulate you. if you never are brought to a doctor ever, i do not concede that is correct. for those people, over 80% of people in 2009 use some kind of health care. everybody is in the health-care

marketplace. if you agree with me on that, you can be regulated if use health care. it is the congress' authority to regulate the market. that's how it is paid for. i think that is pretty clear. you have to get it out of the box of commerce clause. he tries to make that argument. it is about how people pay for health care that they receive. regulating the marketplace of providing for an paying for health care is within the congressional power. >> why don't we both just stay up here?

>> if you have time on your hand and read to the briefing, you could look from the motion to dismiss. the attempt by government to take the case out. we do that as attorney generals. the second round is on the merits. the government came in and said this mandate is critical and we cannot live without it. by the time we got to the summary judgment face, they realize that that language to bring the whole thing down when we got to the remedy if the individual mandate was found to be unconstitutional. they still try to backtracked. martha just said this is about financing of health care. realize what that means when you get to the remedy.

if we prevail -- the private sector health care reforms which have to fall because they cannot stand without the individual mandate. i would suggest that what martha just said is that because it is about health care financing, the elements about medicare and medicaid in the bill must also go. the third rate to slice eight is everything else -- the third way. including the individual mandate. bob walked through some of the polling. this was on popular when it and they got less popular afterwards.

that is unprecedented here. the way the grand selling of achievements of this bill will occur is by the denial of your liberty and choice. you'll start to hear about the ipab that will start to decide. these are what some people have called the death panels. that might be a big dramatic. i see where the name comes from. that will be how those cost savings ocher, the denial of opportunity for care that we now have. i've tried to solve some problems in my state.

it is still the best in the world. we will do a lot to undo that if this legislation stands. >> can i just respond? the people we're talking about who you say we cannot regulate are exactly the people who don't have those choices because they do not have health care insurance. their only option is to go to an emergency hospital room. i think we're talking about a section of people who did not have coverage or choices and that is one goal of congress. and people who can afford it but decide to self-insure. but when have they could-be

they cannot pay for it -- but one they have a catastrophe they cannot pay for it. let's not mix of policy decisions. can congress do this? i know you do not like it. >> let's go to media questions. come up and identify yourselves. sort of stand in new line and identify your outlet. >> money ms. russell -- my name is russell. you argued that the individual mandate is necessary to achieve congress's goal of universal coverage. there are single payer groups and doctors across the country who believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional

because it is not necessary and that a single payer system could have achieved it. how do you counter that argument? >> that is a fair question. we could have done a single payer system. that was governor romney's arguments. we will make sure the people pay for their health care and we will do this in a responsible way. you can have a policy argument about how we pay for this. should it be like medicare? congress made this decision

partly because they decided it would make sense. our people in massachusetts are happy with our bill. it was that argument -- there was not an argument that we cannot do it. still of the authority to do this. the federal government cannot do this. if we're talking about the goals, making sure we sustain the cost, these are goals that congress can attend to the chief. states want this because we have citizens and residents who go between states and we end up paying for their care. and so i think that the idea that congress can do this is separate from the policy discussion about whether there would be a better way to do it. >> we're drifting between policy and law.

the question is not a policy question of whether congress has this authority. martha just what the federal government in with the states as far as the authority to do this. states were left with distinct areas of authority. police powers or the residual powers that were not delegated to the federal government in the constitution and those remain with the states. they will be if not eliminated, nearly eliminated if this case is lost. if i can or you to buy a

product to resolve my problem, i can figure my way through that problem just by compelling you to do things. >> we have christian from kaiser health news. others can come on up. >> address the constitutionality of the medicaid expansion. >> this is a good question. the question is whether or not what amounts to coercion and the argument is that it is coercion that the medicaid expansion is so significant a burden on the state. whether the expansion is so large as to amount to coercion of the states. they make extricate themselves and thereby give up several billion dollars of federal funding. the supreme court in the 1980's

ruled against a portion argument as it related to transportation dollars where the dollars or about 5% of the state transportation budget. they said it is possible that the federal government may reach a point using the spending power that amounts to unconstitutional portion of the states. the case includes that question. the supreme court has never found their to be unconstitutional portion of the states based on the strings the government attaches to the spending power. if this case isn't the want for that conclusion, then the last

30 years or so of the discussion of that topic has been an academic exercise initiated by the supreme court. i did not think we will have a case that pits the bill -- fits the bill. that is the other constitutional question before the court. they have never found it yet. >> is the expansion a problem for congress or one that the court should get into? >> i thing that ken has answered the question anyway factual question.

it is an issue of the relationship between federalism and with the states do. all the states except medicaid money -- all of the states accept medicaid money. what is the actual burden? if that theory is out there, i disagree that this is the case for it. the idea of carrots rather than sticks is something that congress can do. it has been upheld. i do think that would be a requirement of states who argue that to make that factual case. this is a factual issue. >> jimmy lewis, a freelance. he made the argument that we're in the market and if we show up at the hospital door, there is a requirement under the law to

treat people. if the extraction of one individual from the general marketplace of demand, how would you respond to the requirement to provide care and how that is not separable under the filburn case and supply of that care is required by law? >> you have partially answered that question. if you're a medical provider and you get federal dollars, if they come to your door, you must at least screen them and determine emergency treatment or transfer or do nothing, but not

before that screening to determine their need. that is a federal law coring you into that position -- cornering you. that denies reality to a certain extent. i'm standing in front of you. i'm not buying anything or ordering anything. there are other things we need. for instance, food. the asparagus example. usually we go back and forth between asparagus and broccoli. it is neck and neck. other things are necessities of life. transportation, housing. the example of the president used himself when he was

campaigning. those are all other examples. using one of federal law to trap you to say, we're stuck here -- that is a non sequitur that the federal government has put in place. it does not address whether they can compel you when you choose to do nothing. the law ultimately is force. that is how government governs. the compliance of the citizens. >> if you don't get coverage, then you pay a penalty for it. you have a choice in that respect. i think ken's answer -- we're done this already. we do pay for those people.

that is a fact of life. we do not leave people at the emergency room door. it is so expensive. using emergency room care it is incredibly inefficient and expensive. that is one reason why our free care costs have gone down 30% since we implemented it. the argument that people have a right to stay in our homes and say, i'm not buying the policy. that's not what this is about. it is making sure that people have it funded and pay for inappropriate way, necessary and appropriate. >> if i can use that as an example. that entire, it was a policy

argument. the entire argument for the other side in the health-care case is a policy argument. these are good policy goals and so this is constitutional. that is not the way the constitution has been set up. note -- the disconnect on the pro-government side, between the constitutionality and the history of the provisions at stake and the argument be made for this power, they are policy arguments. there is no constitutional boundary to any of those arguments, as heartfelt as they are. >> i take that as ken's vote for a strong public option.

>> the tax question. what i would like to address is that issue. what is the tax basis for the bill? is it a parallel to a tax? you can lead with that. >> this is a radical question actually. if the government can compel you to do what ever -- forget commerce -- and then penalize you for not doing in it and

defend that act, they can or you to do anything. anything. that has to stand separately under the taxing power. this is a radical notion. only one judge out of the 16 that have addressed it has decided that he would find it under the taxing power. that defied my prediction. i am off by one so far. i will stick to that prediction among the justices. i don't think a single justice will find this to be an exercise of the taxing power. >> i would agree with that for different reasons. most of the justices have said it is unconstitutional under the commerce clause. the ability to argue alternative reasons that congress is entitled to do

something. we do it for medicare and social security and for income tax. federal government and the state government does that all the time. i think it is less controversial. ken said it wanted to do, they should have done under the taxing authority. is this under the commerce clause something we can accept? i think courts will take it up. >> i have one last question. >> go back to one filed in 2010 and looked at the next month's press coverage. it was all on the commerce

clause. gradually as the other side figured out their presumption of victory began to fall away, they began to get desperate and look for other arguments. it starts to crop up in mid- april, this fallback argument. it tells you they lost their argument in their own commerce clause arguments. the statements on the other side are grandly confident. i would not wager anything this will be 5-4, one way or the other. the lineup of justices may not be as predictable as you thing. -- as you think. i think it will be a close case. it should not be a close case. it is a slam dunk against the federal government.

we will see how plays out. >> that is an interesting question. it's the politics of the court -- is that the bases that this will be ruled on or do you think it will rise to the patriotism of the situation? interesting question. >> i would like to think so. i will not predict what the numbers will be. i'll be surprised if it is not withheld. they have upheld similar series. for many of the justices who do not like the mandate, i think they will be hard pressed best

upon their theory of the constitution in ways they have decided these kind of cases. but i'm prepared to wait to see what they say. >> we talk about judges and presidents who appoint them. judges and justices tend to be closer to the world view of the presidents that appointment then to the other side. that doesn't tell you where people are going to wind up. that will be the case at the supreme court level. i think it is a possibility. i don't think you'll see anything that runs along party lines by way of appointors.

there isn't a dummy up there. it is -- the fact of the designated five and half hours of argument tells me how significant they believe this case is and just how dramatic a ruling is for the constitution. >> you would agree that you cannot draw from the questions they ask where they are going. >> i would agree with that. >> final question from mike fishman. >> this is directed to the attorney-general cuccinelli. you argued that compelling people into commerce unless and until the seek purposes. my understanding of insurance is the premium is not something

you pay to get a product at the time you buy it. you get it in case you need it sometime down the line. it could be argued that every citizen of the united states is already in commerce with the health care system because there is the potential need for that. the health-care system is there to meet the needs that might arise -- >> not yet in commerce. >> if they are prepared to use that system. if somebody has a heart attack and they don't have health insurance, they will count on the local emergency room to go to it unless they were willing

to waive never using that health care system during their whole lifetime. nobody would ever ask anybody to do that. they count on the availability of health care system should some emergency arise. therefore the fact that the potential is there, the health- care premium pays for a potential need that nobody would ask them to waive their right to. >> both of our guests will answer. and if he could turn them into concluding comments. >> we can regulate you. i would draw your attention to a judge in the district of columbia who ruled for the federal government and what she said was the mental activity was being regulated, that was

her phrase, of those deciding not to buy health care. the synonym for that is thought. i'm not comfortable with that. that would make a great george orwell sequel. if your assertion is correct the supreme court except that as what defines the market for purposes of this case, then i think you're probably right and the government will be granted this power that it has never before had or exercise to compel people to buy this product. you could have made the same argument for food. where does it end? clothing, transportation. my colleague distinguish between the two and that is a

legitimate distinction. those are questions the supreme court will wrestle with. the historical power that this power has never before been exercised and it goes well beyond wicker v philburn. i urge you to read the case. we are not regulating under this bill people who are doing nothing. that has never happened before in american history. >> i think you're exactly right and you have pinpoint what the reality of the marketplace is and how we fund it and expect to pay for it. somebody pays for it. you cannot expect to go to the emergency room and say i have $15,000, $20,000.

whatever it would cost. we do not want you to do that. a national health care marketplace. it is constitutional, i believe. i believe the court will find the it is constitutional. i appreciate my colleague's walk back into history. i think you can look at massachusetts. john adams played a role in the constitution. i know the commerce clause is different. when you look at the authority

the goal that the commerce clause allows for. i don't think there is any question that the analysis behind farmer philburn encompasses this activity. it will be up to judges who have more experience than ken and i. i appreciate this opportunity. this is what our country allows for. i would say that to allow for this kind of debate in the congress and in our own communities to make sure that people have access to good health care and that we can cut costs on that is an important debate. >> we thank our talented and prominent attorneys general and now we know why you are among the leaders in the nation in

your field. the press club expresses its deep gratitude to attorney- general cuccinelli and attorney general coakley and we hope the american people are informed about what the debate will be for five and half hours in the supreme court. thank you for attending and we are now concluded. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> good principles and honesty and looking out for our country. >> how do you think you can know when a president is honest? >> i think that is hard to really judge. you just have to what and keep watching and keep your mind

open and see what they have to say and how they act. >> of their actions are consistent with what they are telling the american public they are going to do. and seeing how close they can be to what our founding fathers had in mind for our country. >> strong leadership, principles, i think a vision for america what america can be. >> i think being able to have a perspective the perspective of what is good for the country what do i need to do to make it all work? and you have to have someone who can work in collaboration. who knows that there are differing opinions. that is what the country is based on, right? all the different opinions and different ideas. how do you bring all that in that direction that makes it work? i would like to thank that is what art -- to think that is what are effective government has been able to do.

>> to represent what america's all about is important to what you were saying to >> i think is making progress, having a vision for how america can bring progress to the rest of the world as well. >> which presidents do you think have done this the most successfully throughout history? >> theater roosevelt -- theodore roosevelt, thomas jefferson particularly fdr. he was president for how long? think of what he got the country through at those particular times. those are the ones that come to my mind. >> of the founding fathers adams, washington, jefferson. beyond that, i am a big fan of harry truman. i think he did some great things in terms of representing america as well, moving us forward. >> recently, i don't know. i will stay away from recently. [laughter]

there have been some high marks and low marks for all of them since eisenhower. >> we have a country where millions of innocent people have had to go to prison. they have put bars on their own windows and bars on their own doors because we have abandoned their neighborhood to crime. i cannot live with that. our neighborhoods should be safe. the children should be able to play in the streets and uni can fix that together. >> as candidates campaigned for president issue, we look back at 40 men who ran for office and lost three go to our website, c- span.org to see videos of the contenders to had a lasting impact on american politics. >> i believe that the destiny of america is always safer in the hands of the people than in the congress rooms of any elite.