unorthodoxed career path which served as editor and chief of a martial arts magazine. judge ikuta. >> thank you. applause >> i love seeing in the bio they wrote up i had taken an unorthodoxed career path. i don't know being the editor and chief of "kung fu" counts as a career path but i would say it's an honor to have had that role. i'm very happy to be back here at stanford. i love being here. . .

the professors writing is widely known. he has written over 100 articles. opinion pieces in publications, like the wall street journal, and he is a frequent contributor. he was awarded a guggenheim award in 2008. but that was not his greatest accomplishment in 2008. in that year, he also portrayed a prosecutor. and according to the movie database, imdb, it is a science- fiction thriller.

finally, i should say he isn't active advocate. in 2004, the professor argued the medical marijuana case before the supreme court. he is now one of the lawyers representing the national federation in their challenge to the affordable care act. our other debater is equally renowned. the professor is a professor at stanford law school, where she also works with the supreme court litigation clinic. she has published numerous articles. she writes a bi monthly column for the boston review on legal issues, and like the professor, she is also accomplish, having

worked on more than seven cases, before the court. and as many of you are aware, she has won numerous teaching awards. the professor is an elected member of the american law institute, the american academy of arts and sciences, and the american academy of public lawyers. but unlike the of the professor, she has not been elected to a movie database yet. [laughter] so let me briefly set the stage before turning it over to the professors. congress passed the affordable care act in march 2010.

2700 pages of legislation. it was controversial, leading to some 30 laws, steering an ongoing national conversation, and more important, it was for the next three years. today, it is an illustrious and growing list of talks about the affordable care act. this is timely today, because 10 days from now, some priests in the case will be filed, and march 26 to march 28, for six hours, the court will hold its own debate on the constitutionality of the affordable care act, but sadly, that debate will be followed by a cocktail party. box there are two major provisions of the act. there is the suspension of

medicaid. the individual mandate requires most americans to buy medical insurance, and if they do not, to pay a penalty. our discussion today will have two 10-minute opening statements, the first from professor barnett, and that will be followed by five minutes or bottles, after which we will have a question and answer session. so i will begin with a softball question,

>> i would like to thank the role that they have played. speaking at the fifth symposium here, with the first amendment, and i was a full-time denigrated contracts professor -- a full- time contracts professor. i was reluctant to accept this, but i'm as prevailed upon by a student -- i was prevailed upon by a student. i was on a panel, which, as you know, was not mentioned in the constitution. we have gotten a much more favorable review, and as a result of that, i really did not

know much about it. eventually, i became a constitutional law professor. i think there was an excellent chance i never would have been a constitutional law professor. i did not realize the power you could have on another person's life. you just never know when something you do will result in someone else's benefit. the federalist society changed mind. -- mine. on march 26, the supreme court began hearing an argument in a constitutional challenge to the affordable care act. my client, the national federation. this was over three days.

this will be the longest in years. the unprecedented length of time underlines the confident predictions about a multitude. just last week, the court had arguments from 5.5 hours to 6 hours. be -- it was an easy case. i think regardless of how this case comes out, i think it is fair to set, and i want to and the next 10 minutes described this as simply as i can. the severability of the individual.

i will talk about this. but in my opening remarks, i want to look at the focus of fundamentals driving the case. over the past two years, i have attended the oral arguments in all of the challenges as well as the florida case. there was an opinion from the judge. the judge outlined an four-step analysis about the constitutional problems appear

-- problems. here is the four-part structure. the jobs of these things down. first, imposing economic mandate on the people to enter into a relationship with the country is unprecedented. the third district court judge to find this unconstitutional. there is no factually similar precedent. something of this magnitude.

voyaging into uncharted territory of constitutional law. the fact of the matter is is clearly permit the extension. of course, the fact that something has never been done before heads not mean something. if the unprecedented nature raises something about the and constitutionality. this is given that in 220 years, trying to mandate private citizens send it, judges should be hesitant before endorsing such a power.

justice scalia and his opinion for the court. justice scalia wrote that if they avoided the use of this, we would have reason to believe that the power was thought not to exist. in the affordable care act, congress was trying to commandeer the people. and the novelty of a at suggests that it does not exist. for example, during world war ii, congress could have mandated the purchase rather than preventing bombers from growing wheat, inducing them. congress could simply have mandated this.

this novel and this attractive, it probably does not exist. the rejected the government's reliance. upon a at a deemed improper. however necessary it may have been, by the same token, for the insurance companies, the power to commandeer individuals this way, with insurance policies, improper. now, the second comment that the judge made, in all phases of the litigation, the government has failed to identify this with the economic mandates. the judges unsuccessfully asked the attorney for 10 very long minutes about the economic

mandates that would be outside, if this mandate is constitutional. the government's only real response to date is with the claim that health care is different. even if it is true that on some factual basis health care is different, this does not provide a limit on done the power of congress, and this was a major concern expressed in their jointly authored opinion when they wrote as follows, "we are at a loss to how such criteria conserves as a limitation of the -- can serve as a limitation of the power the supreme court has emphasized as necessary to the enumerated powers.

good were we to adopt delimiting principles, courts would say in judgment over every mandate issued by congress, determining participation, the amount of unpredictability, or the strength of moral imperative were enough to justify the mandate. ultimately, this only reiterate to the conclusion we reached whenever the defenders of the mandate and says health care is different, and you need to ask, what constitutional limitation are you opposing on this power? and justices to limit the ability of congress to pass some laws, and limiting principle is vote teh bums out." -- vote the bums out."

this will not work in the supreme court, but it is highly revealing that this is the best answer a smart guy can come up with. in my view, the absence of a constitutional limit thing principle on the power to impose mandates is a huge problem for the government. judge cavanagh noted congress could accomplish all it wanted to accomplish simply by exercising tight power in exercising tax power in various ways, but it shows not soup. -- chose not to. there were not 60 votes in congress for anything but a month into a tax increase or even a voluntary increase for anyone who wanted a public option.

the votes just were not there. i do not believe the mandate scheme was intended to become law. it is intended to send the matter to a conference committee who would then write the real bill, but when scott brown got elected on this issue, the democrats were forced to collect this in the house are not get anything done at all. they enacted a bill and were stuck with this dubious mandate, and even a couple of weeks ago, testifying before congress, the acting omb director denied this was a tax, but the fact that congress has other powers it has failed to exercise for political reasons underlines the imperative to uphold this new power as a means of addressing new problems with the health care system.

the fourth and final, given congress has an ample powers to address health-care reform without a mandate, the judge have not asked why open a new chapter by extending the power in such a dangerous wave? -- in so dangerous a way? here he made a new argument, and i have been involved for a year and a half, and it was a new argument against sustaining this power under the commerce clause. unlike the tax and spending power, that is unnecessarily limited, sustaining economic mandates under the congress power would allow congress to impose any penalty for violating economic mandates it may oppose on the future. it is true with the law, and this case, congress limited itself to on monetary penalty or fine, but in the future, the

full panoply of legal sanctions would be available to enforce legal mandates. judge cavanagh seems troubled by the dangerous manner of this commerce clause really gives congress power to imprisoned in america who does not buy a product itself might mandate. when discussing this, we need to distinguish three different senses of the word. first, we could mean whether it is unconstitutional according to a what the constitution says. that is the old-fashioned way to do it. to my mind, the power to mandate is simply not an authorized by the original meaning of the tax. unconstitutional according to what the supreme court said in the past. again, because such a power is literally unprecedented, the supreme court has never ruled to uphold it, and finally, we could mean whether you could count to five justices for upholding a stature, so are their five justices to expand power to include the imposition of

economic mandates? we all know judges typically bend over backwards to uphold our of congress. especially popular ones. gardner -- too appalled at some of congress. recently they asked a question, and you think of as they should be allowed to make all americans buy health insurance and pay a fine if they do not? 80% of respondents answered no -- 82% answered no to this question. only 16% answered yes. in a quinnipiac poll last week, by a margin of 13 percentage points, american support the appeal of this legislation is is quite consistent over time, and a new gallup poll shows 72% of americans believe the initial mandate is unconstitutional, including 62% of democrats and -- including 56 percent of democrats and then 54% of those

who think health care a lot is a good -- who good. this is my conclusion. i want to emphasize i do not believe the court would invalidate the mandates simply because it is unpopular, but i do think and popularity of the mandate might make the court might region more open to an objection to the individual mandate they might otherwise find a way to avoid, and this is especially true if they can strike down the measure. without undermining any other exercise of power on the books. and why is that? because this has never been done before to ago when in validating the down and no other lot in the history of the region no other law in the history of the united states. all it needs say is that congress has gone as far as they have gone into 2010 and no further.

although victory would reaffirm the of the government is one of limited and enumerated powers, and if nothing is done constitutional law will remain the way it has been, but if we lose congress will have a new and dangerous power. and the court will have abdicated its responsibility. all this explains why the challenges have the momentum they do, why the justices were granted three days to hear the case and why i am hopeful the supreme court will show the individual insurance mandate is unconstitutional. thank you. [applause] >> we will give you some extra time. >> thank you. good >> 30 years ago i stopped right here.

i think everyone else in the audience, or perhaps richard will say not, i was one of the only people to actually attend the first ever convention of the federalist society, which was held at yale, when i was a law student there, and i was invited by my friend and roommate. so it is a pleasure to welcome all of you to my backyard and continue a conversation where i am not sure we convince each other of much other them that we care about the constitution. so what should we make about the following argument? this mandate assumes there is an implicit contract based on the notion health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. if a young man wrecks his porsche and did not have foresight to get health insurance, we may commiserate but not think the government should prepare his car, but health care is different. if a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, americans will care for him

whether he has insurance or not. if we find he spent money on other things, and we may become angry, but we will not deny him services, even if more prudent americans and of paying his tab. -- end up paying the tab. that is not part of the defense for the affordable care act. rather, that is a quotation from a report in 1989 on insuring health care for all americans. that formed the underpinnings for what was called the consumer choice health security act of 1994 sponsored by republican senators. 24. that act had an individual mandate that pretty much looks like the mandate today. a similar set of ideas in form and -- set of ideas of what we might call romneycare. whatever one might think about the general question about the coexistence of government and

the administration in terms of a theme for this symposium, it would be a mistake to think of the affordable health care act as a redefinition. ironically, as randy pointed out, a more expensive program funded from tax revenues would have garnered fewer constitutional objections, so in thinking about what to say to you in my opening remarks, i want to discuss a possible flood of arguments against the affordable care ike was awful -- act as a whole. it rests on a rejection of the new deal settlement. if you think congress is a subset of economic activity and that health care is not commerce, i have not much to say to you beyond what judge jackson said the the powers of congress are not to be decided by a reference to any formula

and by what justice scalia says about bush vs. gore -- get over it. the new deal premise is not going away, so this involves interstate commerce congress has the power to control. article one, section eight. congress has the power to prohibit various restrictions based on preconditions or the like. now, article one gives the power to regulate commerce, and we no -- and we know that prohibition can be a subset. it is not clear why prescription cannot as well, so let's start about whether this can cover inducing someone to enter congress who would choose not to -- enter commerce who

which used to do so, do so after gun regulation. as judge silberman wrote -- not to do so after regulation. as judge silberman wrote, at the time the constitution was fashioned to regulate man to adjust to rule or method as well as to direct. to direct included to prescribe certain measures to mark up a certain course and to order or command. in other juan's -- in other words, to regulate can require action, and as a matter of constitutional lawyers as well, -- values, as well, it can. one theme of the constitution was desire to encourage a more vibrant economy. the commerce clause was part of that broader commitment, so obviously commerce can encourage individuals to enter into transactions they might not have otherwise chosen. moreover, when it comes to health care, most americans are

like marijuana, think of yourself as one big joint. you are never more than an incident from the interstate market. most of us are never more than one unplanned incidents from the possibility but we cannot cover the cost of care we expect, so the argument for the mandate flows directly. the affordable care i this is a -- the affordable care act is a reform, a form of health care. congress concluded aspects would be undercut if individuals could refuse to purchase insurance. broadening the pool to include healthy individuals would help to lower premiums and in an -- and administrative cost secure a good -- administrative costs. maybe congress was wrong. i do not know.

i am just a law professor. the question was not whether it was correct, but whether the judgment was rational, but the constitution addresses means by congress, or as the court stated in a 1994 decision, if it can be. -- in a 1934 decision, if it can be seen the means adopted are calculated to obtain the end, the extent to which they can reach the end, the close as -- the closeness between the means and the end are the matters of a congressional determination alone. there is evidence to believe that this is critical to regulating the health care act, so we come to the final objection. making someone buy something they do not want?

if there is, it is not that that violates the commerce clause. rather, it is that inviolate some other constitutional constraints. for example, if the government denied jews the right to sell bicycles, -- it is that it violates some other constitutional constraints. for example, if the government prohibited selling bikes to first amendment. if cars pass a legislation to limit macadamia nuts, that would be a regulation of interstate commerce, since they are grown in hawaii. . but. .

first, as i already suggested congress can assume virtually everybody will spend money on health care during his or her lifetime. that spending itself is clearly within congress' reach. what the individual mandate does is regulate the timing of the activity, in essence forcing people to pay up front as part of a pool rather than gamble they'll be able to pay when the services are needed or that society will pay for the services that they can't. now, as the great progressive justice louie brandeis once remarked, sometimes the most important thing we do is not doing. he was talking about judicial restraint but when you think about the affordable care act,

the truth of the statement is driven home in a particularly poignant and powerful way. one of the original loves in the case now before the court was mary brown. she asserted in her complaint she did not want to have to buy insurance for herself or the employees of her small business. but lawyers performed the supreme court by order her business closed and she filed a petition for personal bankruptcy. go to her schedule f where she lists her unsecured predators and you'll find 2,700 worth of unpaid medical expenses. for many americans, congress found, unpaid and unpaid medical expenses can be the final straw throwing them financially under water. we all pay mary brown's medical care through taxes and higher premiums for those of us who bought insurance.

moreover, the critics never explained why an inaction distinction should apply to congress' exercise of its commerce spower in light of the fact exercising its other powers such as running the court system or providing for the national defense. congress: required individuals to engage in activities they might not otherwise choose to perform. jury selection and registration for the draft are the two most examples of this. indeed, if you go to the government's republican site for collective service, you'll find the government compels people who don't own computers and don't necessarily want to be drafted to buy something they don't want. let me quote a little from the government's website, you can register by mail using a selective service mailback registration form available at any post office. a man can fill it in, sign it, affix postage and mail it to selective service. so buying a stamp can be compelled. i'm not sure why buying insurance can can't.

and for those opponents of the individual mandate who want to return to the time of the framers, here's another example. the militia act of 1792 required white men between the ages of 18-45 to provide themselves with muskets and other equipment. presumably most of those people weren't smelting them in their backwards and they had to go out and actually buy the musket because the national welfare required it, congress required individuals to purchase goods from the market. sure, the individual mandate is innovative, but i can't do better in responding to that point than quote from justice holmes' descent to lockner, he's right then and he's right now. a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether paternalism and the organic relation to the citizen of the state or laissez-faire. it's made for people of fundamentally different views and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the questions whether statutes embodying them

conflict with the constitution of the united states. thank you very much. [applause. >> we'll now have five-minute rebuttles starting with justice barnett. >> i always enjoy pam and enjoy her more when i'm not opposed to her. let me go,000 a couple points she made and in the order she made them. first of all, her opening to the point this particular proposal is not a radical proposal, it wouldn't fundamentally change, for example, the relationship of citizens to the state because it was a proposal that was formally promoted by republicans and conservatives like the heritage foundation. first of all, i happen to know the guy who promoted this from the heritage foundation, stewart butler, who is head of their health policy. i'll say this one thing about stewart butler. he's a brain.

>> he's your friend, mr. stewart butler. >> he's a brick. so i wouldn't necessarily suspect him to be sensitive to the american constitutional system when he proposes something like this. so it just goes to show that the fact -- this actually i wouldn't think would be news to pam, the fact someone is a conservative does not automatically mean they have sound constitutional government. and the fact someone is a republican might even have less correlation with having sound constitutional judgment. [applause] but it's radical in this sense. i agree it's kind of nationalizing insurance companies to administer a national health care system by making them regulate public utilities and is probably slightly more desirable than having the government run it all so fine, it's more moderate than that but radical in the following statement, massachusetts gets to do this because massachusetts has a general police power, and in

order for congress to get to do this you'll really have to -- the court will have to say congress has a general police power, too. for the courts to say, intimate, apply, or hold congress has a general police power to do what a state can do is a very radical proposition. and reaffirmed the denial of that proposition in the case of lopez-morrison most recently. that's the first. the second point has to do with mandates and whether mandates can be included under the meaning of the word "regulate." first of all, the term "regulate" means regulate commerce and the term seems to suppose you're regulating an activity called commerce that's an activity already in existence. the idea the power to regulate commerce is the power to create the commerce, so that you then would regulate is somewhat of a stretch when it comes to a

constitutional interpretation. the meaning of the constitution, notwithstanding the fact the word "direct" might be somewhere down the list of dictionary synonyms in johnson's dictionary, and the fact is regulation has never been held by the supreme court to conclude the power to mandate. the word "regulation" didn't get upheld to include the pow tore prescribe as opposed to make regular until champion versus ames in the early 20th century. by the way, i think champion versus ames is correct in the conclusion of the meaning of the term regulate for a variety of historical reasons but the court never decided the power to mandate is included sand a novel question and is question to be decided here. it's not true commerce has a limited end to accomplish its means provided it's accomplishing its end subject only to, for example, the expressed prohibitions of the constitution as ex-play find by the bill of rights or the ninth

amendment and know that's true because in the prince case congress was exercising its commerce power by commandeering or really mandating the state legislatures pass laws of certain kinds and as a result of a principle that is not expressly stated in the constitution other than indirectly by the 10th amendment that the court held it was an improper means, however necessary, it may be, it's an improper means of executing congress' regulatory power over congress. to make a sovereign body exercise its power. but the power to enter into contracts is each one of our sovereign powers as a member of the people. i was a contracts professor, i'll go back to that. and it's an age old principle contracts require the mutual consent of the parties and they're not to be coerced, yet that's precisely what the individual mandate does is interfere with the sovereign

power of individuals with consent to enter into contracts and that violation of the 10th amendment which i remind you protects not only the reserved powers of the states but also the reserve powers of the people, the words that the 10th amendment ends in. there's two more points. i want to talk about why mandates are substantively different. they're substantively different by considering the following thought experiment. suppose i tell you a hundred things you may not do tomorrow. you may not ride a bike, you may not go on a treadmill, you may not eat broccoli and a hundred other things you may not do tomorrow. if i were to do that and had authority over you, your liberty tomorrow would be restricted and there would be a hundred things you couldn't do but an infinite number of things left to you that you could still do. now suppose i had the power to mandate that you do a hundred things tomorrow, you must eat broccoli, you must ride on a bicycle, you must ride on a treadmill and must buy a car

and a hundred other things you must do. if i had that power over you, i would essentially have the power of controlling your life because there's only a -- you only have a finite amount of time and a finite amount of resources so mandates are really a completely different matter than even prohibitions much less a pure regulation which tells you how to do something. the other point i would make has to do with other mandates. i wouldn't argue congress has the power to mandate you to do anything. it has. it has the power come conscript you into the armed forces and make you fight and die for your country. it has the pow tore make you serve on a jury trial and has the power to make you fill out a tax form and i discovered in the course of this litigation it has the hauer to make you join a posse comatotis if u.s. marshals are trying to enforce federal law and that's another mandate it can do.

does that mean therefore the problem of mandate is not problematic? no. each one of these mandate is directly related to service of the government itself and each is directly related to the very existence of the government itself and each constitutes one form or another of what the supreme court said, characterized when it upheld the service law and said it was part of the supreme and noble duty of americans to provide for defense of their country in return for the protection the country gives them. so it's basically these mandates are for the government. they are part and parcel of what it means to be an american citizen in order to serve the federal government, whether you as a libertarian agree with that or not, that's the way they are decided and what the defenders of this mandate are basically saying is because the congress has the pow tore make you fight and die for your country, it has the power to make you do anything less than that and any power that has the power to make you do anything less than that is essentially the power that slave holders have over slaves.

and if in fact the government really does have the power over us, then i would say -- i don't feel the court would actually find this if we lose the case even but if those principles were upheld in those terms it would change the fundamental relationship of the citizens of the state and we essentially would be better off being called subjects rather than citizens. [applause] >> let me start with the places where we do agree and then talk about where we don't agree. we both agree there are constraints on what the government can make you do and we agree those constraints come from important principles of liberty. where we disagree is on two other points. one is whether this particular mandate actually deprives of you some important liberty. and the second is on whether

those constraints should be smuggled into a definition of what counts as commerce or what counts as necessary and proper regulation of commerce rather than standing on their own. and i think that's an area of kind of profound method logical agreement between randy and me. so here's what i think. this is not a case about a general police power. this is a case about regulating the economy. most americans use a form of health care in any given year. regulating that activity is regulation of the economy and for those of us who agree with the supreme court's abandonment of the production extraction commerce distinction, it's

commerce. so it's not a question of can the government regulate health care. of course they can. and they regulate it in a whole bunch of ways i don't think anybody would challenge. then the question becomes, is this a necessary and proper way of regulating it? and i think the answer to that question is yes, because the standard for that is asking whether congress can rationally think there's a connection between making people buy insurance and having an insurance system in a health care system that works. they might be right about that. they might be wrong about that but everybody agrees, i think, that our health care system right now faces a number of crises and why i started with a quotation from the heritage committee publication and a reference to the republicans' earlier health care plan, not because i was trying to play a gotcha but simply to suggest that people on every side are struggling with this issue and people of genuine goodwill who disagree on a wide variety of areas could say that this was an appropriate way. many of us don't think it was

the best way. indeed, it's hard to find anybody thinks this is the best law that has been written. the people who need that probably do need health care but of a mental health care sort. so this is regulation of the economy and then the only question becomes, is this the first step on the road to slavery? and i think not. i think that it is a first step on a road to making sure that americans, regardless of their economic status or employment status have access to health care and is the first step in making sure that we don't end up depriving other people of their rights by forcing us to pay taxes and forcing us to pay higher insurance premiums so they can get health care that we as a society feel they have to get and are willing to deny them if they make the wrong economic choices. >> i'm going to ask a question and while i do that, you have an opportunity to go to the microphones and get ready to

pepper our panelists. and my question is first for professor karlan. you seem to suggest that you agree that the government could make you buy, i guess eat macadamia nuts under the commerce clause and then you suggested that maybe the limiting principle could be the substantive due process principle. is that really a limiting principle that you could say really shocks the conscious and is fundamentally unfair to order conception of liberty to require us to buy macadamia nuts? >> so let me clarify slightly my answer which is i think that if the government says you must buy macadamia nuts, they are regulating commerce. that is the problem with the law that says you must buy macadamia nuts is not that it's not about commerce in some sense. i then think there are a variety of arguments for -- although the government can be like your parents and make you come and look at the macadamia

nuts, they can't make you eat them, like the broccoli argument, your parents could make you sit there and look at the broccoli but can't make you eat it. i do think there are very strong arguments that say that the government cannot force to you ingest a substance for no reason at all. we know the government can under some circumstances control you to ingest a substance. we have forced medication of prisoners. it's not that the government can never do it. for free people out in the world the government cannot do that. i'm confident there's not a judge in america who would make somebody eat macadamia nuts they wouldn't want to eat. i'm confident that's where the limit with, it's not that it's a regulation of commerce. >> let's go to the questions. can you identify yourself or frame your question in the form of a question? >> questions directed towards

professor karlan. if the government can force you to buy health insurance via commerce power, how do you suggest making the other powers superfluous. the regulated powers say you have the power to coin money, establish post offices and post roads. it seems to me if they became that specific as to those other subjects, then how would they be able to, therefore, force you to buy health insurance. it seems like they're -- maybe it's a commerce question in general, but as to the specifics, again, how do you prevent from rendering all the other powers superfluous? >> i think it goes to the power of congress to build those things, not the question of making you buy stamps or the like. so i don't think those particular powers would be rendered superfluous by a requirement congress could tell you to buy something that's

being sold. >> stanford law school, just had a question touching on professor karlan. you mentioned obamacare/romney care and mr. barnett mentioned the police power of the states versus the federal government. i'm wondering on the first hand, is there anything in the constitution that would protect us of the state's assertion of power and is it sort of assumed people could move states or what are the sort of benefits or drawback that states regulate health care in that way versus the federal government? >> you could make an argument on the state's power along the line's pam said but it's not an existing doctrine that would succeed. this is based on the existing doctrine, not the original

meaning of the constitution which shows the mandate is not constitutional and base on existing doctrine and states under existing law do have this power. ron one of the reasons states historically have a broader power under congress under the original meaning of the constitution is apart from historical reasons of the way it happened is when any state exercises their broader powers in an impressive way, there's a competition between them and other states and people who don't like it can move to another state without giving up their american citizenship without leaving the country that they were born in. as a result there was a constraint placed on states by the existence of its competition and it's presizely to avoid those constraints the legislation gets moved to the federal level because people who advocate those policies which aren't popular enough to be enacted state by state are moved to want to enact it nationally because they force to you leave the country before you lose that policy -- before you have to avoid that policy.

for this reason, even having somewhat regular powers in the hands of states is checked by other forces that constrain the exercise of those powers that would not exist at the national level when the only check of the powers you have are essentially national elections or a judicial review, and by and large traditional review has not prune to be a very robust check on national power. >> there is another side randy was talking about this some judgments can't be dealt with on a state level. if you're a state that wanted to create a really robust single payer health system, one of the problems you would face would be you build that system and it's the sort of eight men out theory or something, or if you build it, they will come. you will end up like a field of dreams with everyone moving to your state. and so i think part of the answer is the reason we move to

the idea of national solutions for this problem is that state level solutions are going to be very hard to fix, to make effective in the same way we move to national nationwide unemployment insurance during the new deal because the new deal that states would serve as kind of magnets for people move ago cross state lines because of the national guarantee under the right of the 14th amendment to move to another state and become its citizen. there's a delicate balance there whether it's better to have federalism or effective solutions at the national level. >> i do think this also illustrates one of the many reasons why justice holmes was wrong in his dissenting opinion in lock lochner in that the existing federalism makes it incompassible with certain ideologies which we would say are more all-embracing to the

extent the public doesn't want them, people are free to flee within the united states and that provides a structural check on those policies which was one of the impetus for -- impeti -- >> i think it's impetuse. >> it's one of the motivations for why the federal constitution, the powers of the federal constitution had to be distorted in order to render it more powerful than otherwise would be to avoid the structural constraint built in our constitution. >> david silvers, georgetown university law center. this question is for professor karlan. a big part of the justification for health care is that the health care market is special, that's some sort of limiting principle, but is it functional to any sort of limit or will it be the case saying the court accepts health care as special it has to accept all future specialties if congress says cars are in fact special or broccoli is in fact special the court will automatically accept

it? i'm wondering if we accept health care as special as an argument do we have functional limits after that? >> i don't think it's so much that health care is special, that supports my argument because my argument is this is a regulation of commerce and congress, having decided to regulate comprehensively in this area can then decide to have an individual mandate as part of it. there are people who think health care is totally different, i think there it's the political check that you're not going to see congress passing a law at least under any sort of set of circumstances i can imagine where they will say you have to buy the car because what they'll do is use the tax power there and the general tax and spender will end up exactly where i am, which is we did all buy cars we just didn't get them. it's not that you didn't buy a car. the government charged you for a car and then somebody else bought the car. at least with the health insurance thing you get the health insurance. >> pam did not make this argument so she's right not to

have to respond to that particular question. the government i think has made that argument consistently, and if that argument were really offered as a good faith, real, legal limiting principle then we who deny the health care is different would be entitled to a hearing, we'd have to have a hearing and we can call witnesses and figure out and have a factual determination whether health care is different than other industries and there would have to be a standard of review with that determination if it was in fact a judicially enforceable limit but the very fact there would be no such hearing like in the reich case, the government made up that reaching medical marijuana in california, why that was important and we never got a hearing on it, the fact we would get no hearing on this and therefore would never be a factual determination it limit is not a limiting principle of the kind that's being asked for with what is a judicially administerable limiting

principle. >> i'm jordan pratt from the university of florida, i'm a president there. this is directed towards professor karlan. i think you mentioned in your view the word regulate includes to enforce people into transactions they normally wouldn't do. and i think professor barnett did not concede on your definition. even if he were to have conceded on that point there still remains the question what is being regulated, whether it's commerce or something else, in your view is the failure to purchase a commodity an activity that substantially affects commerce, is it commerce or something else and if it is commerce, where would you find support for the proposition the failure to purchase a commodity constitutes commerce? >> i think there are two ways to answer that question. and i sort of in my own mind oscillated back and forth between them. one is that you regulate

commerce in the fact that enforcing someone to regulate in commerce is regulating commerce. that's one way to answer that question in the same way let's say a state will regulate education, having a truancy law that forces children to go to school is a regulation of education and forces them to engage in education they wouldn't otherwise engage in. that's one way i answer the question. and as i confess, i oscillate back and forth between these. even if this is not itself commerce, the government is entitled under the necessary and proper clause to address things that are not themselves the enumerated power for the purposes of carrying out the enumerated power. so, for example, in the united states against com stock, the enumerated power goes to whether or not, you know, there's a regulation of commerce in the sense of regulating odometers, let's

say, on cars that are shipped interstate, then the necessary and proper clause says you can criminalize something that interferes with that commerce. and the necessary and proper clause says, for example, you can build prisons to put people in prison who violated law. why? because having prisons will help deter activities that interfere with interstate commerce. so under that way of thinking about things, even if the individual that is being forced to buy the health care is not in himself or herself is engaged in interstate commerce it would be forcing somebody to do something that is necessary for congress' regulation of the markets in health care or insurance. >> don't jump! >> i was about to create one more question for you. daniel pollack at penn. my question is for professor

karlan. you mentioned the draft as a mandate, as proof or example why the individual mandate for health care is constitutional. however, if you -- obviously, as you know, there are certain amendments that were added to the bill of rights specifically to deal with the draft profession and was discussed among the founding fathers in the draft of the constitution. my question would be can you address the constitutionality of the mandate through a prism of the fact it's not mentioned in the constitution that the individual mandate -- i'm sorry, that the commerce clause allows mandates as well as the fact there are no protections for things like making us buy macadamia nuts, it's one thing to say no judge would force anyone to do that, why would that not be in the constitution itself had the founders intended for the commerce clause to include mandates? >> they didn't even know there was hawaii. it was the first western people

to land in hawaii land as the same year of the declaration of independence. . . 4wp >> they did not even know there was hawaii. the first western people to land in hawaii lynn did the same year as the declaration of independence. part of this is a disagreement about just how much something has to be expressed in the constitution. i do not think that the framers of our constitution could have foreseen the country became. i think the document they wrote is capacious enough to enable us

to solve the problems of our generation in the same way it was capacious enough to solve the problems of the generation before us. it is not because i can find a health care costs or a mandate clause. i cannot do that. i think people who pretend to do that are disingenuous. the constitution was created in part to enable a national government to deal with unforeseen and unforeseeable problems in later generations. it is the oldest written constitution in the world by an order of magnitude. the average national constitution last 17 years and then they write it. -- they rewrite it. our constitution is more like a redwood. it is, i will use the phrase, it is a living constitution. it is a constitution to deal with the problems of our generation. that. >> professor, he was saying that you agreed that there are limitations on what -- you were saying that you agreed that there are limitations on what the congress can force you to buy. it seems that could apply to other congress cases. you could have characterized lopez as the liberty to carry

guns near schools. that should be its own due process argument. because regulating commerce is broad doc brought in, we defer to commerce. -- is brought in, we defer to commerce. i am wondering if you think the argument you are making is reconcilable. >> i think it is consistent. the argument was, there is no commerce. there was no buying and selling of anything. i happen to think that the cases are unfortunate cases. i am not sure they were wrongly decided. i think a better case in one way is prince. that was a spending clause case restricted by the 10th amendment. you had to receive funds in order for you to run the checks.

let's assume it is a straight up commerce clause. if it were, the argument is not the there is nobody engaging in commerce, people were trying to buy guns. it is that the 10th amendment put a strain on it. liberty constraints should be called liberty constraints and not try to pretend that a particular constraint is not a regulation of commerce. to go back to the example i gave earlier, if the government denies people the right to engage in commerce that is necessary to their religion, that denies the free exercise clause. i think the same is true here. people are buying health care. the question is, whether they have a liberty interest in not being able to buy it in a particular way. >> i'm the federal society vice president from the university

of idaho. you mentioned early on that there was no factually similar case or issue. i was wondering how you would distinguish the fifth congress of the u.s. passed an act for the release a sick and disabled semen. is it simply -- seaman. >> that was about the regulation of navigation. the regulation of navigation was at the core of the main of commerce. there is all kind of evidence that is true.

if you are operating a ship, you have to provide for insurance. you have to provide for health care for some of the people. this is a regulation of economic activity in the sense that -- we are having all kinds of panels on all the millions and billions of economic regulations that say if you are going to do this, you have to do it this way. that is what that was. that example was actually misconstrued by the court of southeast underwriters when they found that insurance was commerce. they used this example -- they were regulated navigation. this was a means of doing that. the court never said the insurance part of that -- i think the underwriters were wrong. that is water under the bridge. we are not asking the court restored the regional meeting

of commerce. >> there is a light in my eyes. i cannot see anyone up there. i will lead glenn lee. >>-- lead blidnly. >>-- blindly. >> the regulation congress has imposed makes insurance companies a form of public utility. it would give congress the ability to regulate prices, things like that, based on the benefit -- the practical benefit of forcing everyone to get insurance. with that being said, is there a theory than that if insurance companies -- is there a fear then that the government can control what kind of operations can be done just as the government can control which companies are in charge of

electricity versus gas? >> i think it is important to know that what is going on here is insurance is being abolished. health-care policy people are well aware of this. they are in favor of this. insurance is a bet. you abetting you are going to die, the life insurance company is betting you are going to live. there is a risk. that is what your premiums are. that is what the life insurance company is offering you. there has been a lot of movement away from that. the affordable care act makes tha)átt(s it says you have to take everybody. it says he cannot vary the amount you charge.

you can vary it somewhat. it is outlier in traditional insurance. what it is preserving is the ability of insurance companies to make money. the point is to keep insurance companies in business so they can administer this government program. both because that would get them on board politically, they did not want the insurance company is supposed -- opposing this, it would allow them to continue to exist. they are still going to be able to make a lot of money. this is a transfer from help the citizens to the insurance companies. -- from healthy citizens to the insurance companies. it is not insurance anymore. it might be the best policy. we should not make any bones there. we should not be under any illusions about what the nature

of this change is what seems to conceal the fact is that money is going out of your pocket into the pockets of private companies, rather than the traditional way. the government has to be politically accountable. >> to follow up on part of your question, can the government regulate what procedures and policies -- a policy will provide? the answer is yes, subject to the constraint of equal protection and the first amendment. just to use a case i am sure you are all familiar with, another case with gonzales. they banned a second trimester abortion procedure. the act says it is anyone who performs the procedure.

the government can do that. the disagreement would not be that the government is regulating commerce, it is that they are violating the process. that is why claims about whether something is included or excluded have to be argued, not about -- on the grounds it is about commerce. >> the amazing thing is that in oral argument, justice stevens asked the defendant, what gives congress the power to tell free clinics what they are supposed to do? this was after the case. the solicitor general was too polite to say this, will it was your opinion. instead he said, we have not read it. >> -- briefed it.

>> we did file a brief suggesting there was a commerce clause problem. >> that is the final point i want to make. that shows how the structural constraints are protections of liberty. when the constitution was first enacted, they were the only protection of liberty. there were no amendments. it was sold to the people on the grounds that because congress only has enumerated powers, you do not need a bill of rights. that only makes sense if the congress does have enumerated powers. once you define the power of congress to regulate the economy, you have done away with that important first line of defense to protect liberty.

now all you have are the life boats that the anti-federalists insist be put on congress. you are out of this structure that is defined by congress itself. we want to preserve what is left of the structure of the constitution that attacks liberty. this is the case that gives us the opportunity to say this far and no further. [applause] >> i think we have run out of time. i hope you'll join me in thanking the panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> let us know what you think of the individual mandate part of the clause. do you think it is legal? we are asking that on our facebook page. in a few moments, the alabama

gop hosts nick gingrich and rick santorum. -- newt gingrich and rick santorum. in an hour and a half, a discussion of u.s.-russia relations. then secretary of state clinton on the weekend killings of afghans by a u.s. soldier. later, a news conference focusing on corporate influence in the elections. on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," a look at diplomatic roles in afghanistan. a u.s. soldier is in custody. our guest is michael hirsh. than tim lynch and winniw stachelberg debate the merits of hate crime laws. then a discussion of the report

on the loan guarantee program. we will hear from frank rusco the government accountability office. every day starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span's local content vehicle city tors takes our book the be and american history tv programming on the road. march featured louisiana. >> mr. noll was a local man. he was born here and lived here most of his life. he started accumulating books when he was a teenager. over his lifetime he accumulated over 200,000 volumes. we have a gem in the collection. it is this one. it is one of the books we are most prevalent of. it is india original binding

from 1669. it was once owned by a famous scientist. he has written his name, i. newton. >> of american history tv look at civil war era medical practices. >> pioneer medicine is a long stretch from what it is today. the things we take for granted today when we go to the doctor, things like the instruments being germfree, or, the doctor has washed his hands. we use the term loosely for doctors when we are talking early medicine. a lot of these doctors were self-taught, or they were working under someone else who had been self-taught. they would learn as they went. >> at the tour continues the weekend of march 31 and april 1

from little rock, arkansas. >> the mississippi and alabama primaries are tomorrow. tonight, the alabama republican party hosted candidates newt gingrich and rick santorum. texas congressman ron paul and mitt romney did not participate 50 delegates are at stake in alabama. this is a little less than an hour and a half.

gue>> alabama is all over our state are excited about this opportunity to participate in the nominating process, which president of the united states. [applause] all four republican presidential candidates were invited to participate tonight, and we are honored to speaker gingrich and senator santorum for accepting our invitation. [applause] as i said before, this is the first time we have ever done anything like this, so we are privileged to be able to host this presidential forum. i want to thank the local media, the national media. i know it has been an inconvenience for some of you to get here, but we really are a staple for you being here, thank you for the coverage you are giving this campaign. thank you for showing the good side of alabama. thank you so much. [applause] all eyes are going to be on

alabama tomorrow. they will be looking at you. i am sure we have a diverse opinion here. that is what makes america so great. i want to encourage everyone of you to please go out tomorrow and vote for the candidates of your choice. that is what this process is all about. [applause] so if you want to replace barack obama in the white house and you want to take alabama, let's hear it. [cheers and applause] i think we have some enthusiasm here tonight. this is going to drive our turnout up tomorrow. i predict we will have a record turnout at the polls tomorrow. just to tell you a little bit about the format tonight, we do have the two presidential candidates here. they will come out and speak

for 15 minutes. after that will have a series of questions by a team of panelists that we have selected. they will be joining us over here in just a few moments. representing approximately 10,000 independent businesses, on their behalf, she is representing elected officials. rose mary serves on various boards and commissions including the department of human resources, welfare and reform tax force and alumni board of directors. daniel moss is a 16-year-old sophomore at good old high school. he is an officer of teenager publicans and for the last three years, daniel has hosted his own television show called the freedom report. our third panelist is michael smith, a banking software analyst who serves on the board

of directors overseeing the new state run college savings plan. michael and his wife live in birmingham where he is the treasurer of greater birmingham young republicans. that is our lineup for tonight. now we are getting ready to hear from one of our presidential candidates. senator richard john santorum, better known as rick, is a native of virginia but grew up in west virgini pennsylvania. @ñhis father was an immigrantñ o came to the united states at age 7 from italy. santorum received his undergraduate degree from pennsylvania state university. he received a law degree with honors from the dickinson school of law. he and his wife have seven children. they lost an eighth child shortly after birth. senator santorum was elected to the u.s. house representive in 1990. following his departure from the senate, he worked as a

consultant, private practice lawyer and contributed. please help me welcome senator santorum. [applause] [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. it is great to be here in alabama, thank you. thank you. thank you very much. i appreciate that wonderful southern hospitality and that great greeting. we have had a great view days here in the state of alabama. as i say in every speech again, this is the most important election of your lifetime, and i don't care how old you are. [applause]

this is an election about big things. it is about the economy and the importance of this economy, getting jobs created again in america, where we have a president who has put forth an agenda that robs you of your freedom and new taxes and trust to regulate every aspect of your life, passing more regulations than any president in the first four years of his term. this is an economy that is struggling. down here on the gulf coast in alabama and mississippi and louisiana, how important it is that we have drilling in our gulf and we explore for energy in this country, and we have a president who is absolutely crushing it. he has a two-letter energy policy, n-o. when it comes to drilling in deep water, he said no. he has said no to alaska,

federal lands, no. in my backyard, a come from western pennsylvania. we did not own any oil or gas wells, but my grandfather was a coal miner. we see there, even with private lands and gas being explored there, and oil coming out of the ground in eastern ohio, we have a government who is putting that at risk by brent and regulations over something called hydraulic fracturing, and we have been doing in this country since world war ii. now that it is driving down the price of natural gas, the president wants to think of regulating it. the only place he has said yes is helping the brazilians drill off their shores.

when it came to the keystone pipeline, what did he say? no. we need a president that will say yes to energy development in this country, that will create tens of thousands of jobs, lower gas prices, lower natural gas prices. we need a president who understands what gets this economy going. we have put forth a plan that will get this economy going and other key areas, not just energy but manufacturing. i come from western pennsylvania. i grew up in public housing. the first 18 years of my life. i can tell you working in that town in pennsylvania, i know what about the people employed in gave them the opportunity to rise, and the tremendous knitting together of a community when everybody, no matter what your skill level, has an opportunity to get a job and provide for themselves and

their family, have the pride of going to work every day, participating in civic and community organizations. that is how america works. a big part of that for small town america was manufacturing. the only person in this race who has put for the bold plan, not just for energy development, but for manufacturing, to create an opportunity for small town and rural america to get the resource based economy going, get the manufacturing based economy going. we see an aggregation of people into big cities because the economic opportunities just not there across america as they once were. we are going to change that. we will bring in jobs that were shipped overseas. we will cut the corporate rate for everybody in half, but for manufacturers, we would say bring those jobs back to america and employ people in small town america. [applause] we need someone who is serious

about shrinking the size and scale of federal government, right? [applause] we want someone who has actually put forth a plan that will get us there. five trillion dollars in cuts over five years. a balanced budget in five years. i pledged to spend less than a year before every year until we get to a balanced budget. [applause] big glass tower in going to do it? you do it the way i did it when i was in the house and led the fight on the floor of the senate. in the entitlements and the federal level and get them back to the states where they belong, not at the federal level. [applause] we did it with welfare reform. i authored the bill that was in the house as a member of the

ways and means committee. i managed the bill and went up against ted kennedy and daniel patrick moynihan and bill clinton. harry reid is nothing to deal with. [applause] we can get it passed. we just need to go out to the american public and tell them, we don't need 72 assessments that the federal level. let's get it back to the state and local level. let's do what works. the amazing thing is with welfare, when you cut the welfare rolls in half across the country, poverty rates went down and employment went up. that is exactly what we want. [applause] we have a track record on the big issues of the day and the social issues of the day on the

domestic front. obamacare is the reason i am in this race. [applause] karen and i decided to enter this race. it was not a rational decision. we have seven children, ages 20-3. not the best time in our lives to be out running for president, but we decided to do it because we could not look our children in the eyes and realize what kind of country we would be handing them if obamacare is implemented, and every single american, not 40%, but every single american will be dependent on the federal government for benefits, and not just any benefit, the benefit of your help and your life. once that happens, once every american now has to look to washington and pay tribute to those in power, you see what happens. it already see which of some of the regulations that have been put in place.

the government telling you, we are going to give you rights. be careful. when the government says they give you rights, they can take that away. [applause] they can threaten to take it away, and they can tell you how to exercise that right, whether you want to purchase insurance and what they sell you, they make you buy, they tax you a certain amount, they tax your employers a certain amount, they pay doctors a certain amount. if you don't like some of the benefits, even if they are against your religious convictions, too bad. you will do what you are told with this new right that you have. you see, the problem is, government is not the source of rights in this country.

[applause] ultimately, that is the most important issue in this race. where do our rights come from? who is that that should be in control of this country? i decided to run for president, along with my wife karen, because we believe that obamacare is the game changer for america. it is game changer on the very foundation level of one word, liberty. liberty is at stake in this election. economic development, yes. jobs, yes. energy, all of those issues, vitally important. but at the core of its, we have a president who believes in

ruling you from the top down. that he knows best how to run your life. but that is not what made america great. it is in the eyes of president obama. nine months ago reacting to paul ryan's budget, he was waxing eloquent, reading from a teleprompter -- my teleprompter is way in the back, you just cannot see it. he said americans, look at all these entitlement programs that paul ryan would propose to cut back. he said america is a better country because of all the entitlements. he said, i will go one step further. america was not a great country until these entitlement programs. that is how the president sees america. he sees america as a country

that is great when government takes money from some and gives it to those who know best how to spend it, and know what is fair and allocating it and giving it to other people. that is what the president believes makes america the greatest country in the history of the world. ladies and gentlemen, that is not the reason my grandfather came to this country back in 1925. there was no social security. there is no medicare, food stamps, no housing programs. there were not any government benefits except one, freedom, and it was enough. [cheers and applause] ronald reagan in his farewell address that a caution to everyone. the final word she said as president of the united states

to the american people, the last two paragraphs of his speech, he talked about the concern he had for the future of our country, because institutions like schools, higher education, the media, the popular culture, were teaching a very different story about who we are. he was concerned that america would forget what made us great. the greatness of ronald reagan was not just his policy. the greatness of ronald reagan is he knew where we came from. he understood what made america the greatest country in the history of the world. i want to thank the tea party, because what they have done -- what they have been able to do over the past couple of years is resurrect a document that

many consider to be a dead letter in washington d.c., something called the constitution of the united states. [applause] a constitution is a great and important document. it is the house of america, the operator's manual, something we have not paid much attention to. we need to get back to our constitutional balance, but it is only half of the story. the constitution alone is insufficient. it is potentially dangerous, as we saw when countries like france adopted a similar constitution at the very same time. but their constitution, unlike ours, was not anchored to another document, a document that anchored and tethered it. that of course is the declaration of independence. [applause] people ask, what makes america exceptional? why are we different? you can go to the constitution,

but that is not it. it is these words that you all probably were taught in grade school and memorized, but we don't really remember or even recognize as americans how transformational they were. we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. [applause] when the boy read the constitution and say we get our rights from the constitution, that is wrong. the constitution does not give us rights. it recognizes rights that are written on our hearts because we are creatures of god. that is where we get our rights from. we had a country that was based

on a constitution that was constructed to protect those rights. we are going to believe in limited government and free people. never before in history of the world had that happened, that we would allow people to have radical freedom. our founders believed with god- given rights, with all rights come responsibilities. [applause] and if we exercise those rights consistent with his will, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- happiness at the time of the revolution was to do the morally right thing with god's will, because that is what leads to true happiness. that is what our founders believed.

[applause] and so we had this great experiment of building of great society was limited government from the bottom up, and we changed the world. winston churchill said the debate is not about the future, it is about the past. we have a president of the united states who is trying to redefine america's past, giving speeches that capitalism doesn't work and individual liberty leads to greed and unfairness and misallocation of resources. written in all our hearts, people who came to this country and the ancestors who followed them is in fact an understanding of who we are, of what made us great bid for 2000

years prior to america, life expectancy in the world was 35. in 200 years, it has more than doubled, because we unloosed the spirit of the individual, the family, the church, of the civic and community organization and the small businessman. we build a great and just society and family, one church, one school, one business. we believed in it. in 2008, the american public was sold a bill of goods. there were lots of problems and so we had a candidate that went around and try to convince you that you needed to vote for someone you could believe in, someone who would solve the problems, pay your mortgage, as one person even suggested.

but after four years of looking at what put your faith in government can do, we as republicans need to step forward and nominate someone different, someone who can tell the american public that no longer do you need to look to washington d.c. and its president you can believe in, but you need to look at a leader that believes in you. [applause] thank you very much. i appreciate it. thank you. [cheers and applause] [inaudible]

>> thank you, senator santorum. please welcome our panelists. please be seated. >> the first question will come from our teenager. he has his own television show. >> senator, it is an honor and privilege. present lincoln's proclamation in 1863 because much of the condition our country is in today. i agree with him. we have grown in numbers, will and power. we have forgotten god. blessed are the nations whose god is the lord. [applause]

we as americans believe in the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness and that they are given only by god. yet, we live in a country that has seemed 50 million abortions. how will you lead our nation back to god? >> i think it is important, there has been a lot of criticism because i am very public about my christian faith and my beliefs. [applause] one of my favorite sayings is, preach the gospel, and if you have to, speak. part of what irresponsibility is is to go out and behave in a way that is consistent with what he professed to believe.

that is very important. one of the reasons i got so upset about the way the obama administration has dealt with this issue, before that, there was a supreme court case which the obama administration tried to force a religious organization to hire a minister that did not believe in the face they were being hired to serve. a remarkable thing. it was discrimination, according to the obama administration. not to hire someone who, as a minister, did not believe in the teachings of the church. that is the kind of extreme we are going through. i believe we have to have a president who articulates a vision that is not just freedom of worship. they are starting to say that in the state department. they do not use the word

religious freedom, they use the word, freedom of worship. for those of a but -- those of us who are of religious faith, we know warship is critical but not everything. what we do outside is just as important as what we do inside. [applause] so, what you will see is someone who, as i have done throughout this campaign, will talk about the importance of faith in public life. talk about the importance of people of faith being involved in public life and speaking out from their religious convictions or their non- religious convictions. that is what james madison referred to as the perfect rhythm -- reading of the first amendment. all people, of faith and no

faith, can come into the public square and make their arguments. they can wear a wristband that looks like a piece of barbwire. it is for religious liberty. that is the trump upon which all other freedoms them. if we do not protect theat in this country, in the public square, as well as the ability for people to speak the truth, then we are not a free country. if you cannot speak what you believe, then why speak? [applause] >> thank you, senator. your question, please. >> welcome to alabama. many decisions are made to a competitive bidding process. in recent years, labor unions have been able to sway the outcome of these decisions.

critics have pointed out the flaws. what actions would you administration take to ensure that special interests would not be able to interfere with those decisions? >> i feel very blessed to be running the kind of campaign i am running. i have always felt this way. when i first ran for congress i was elected against a 14-year democratic incumbent. i was outspent three-to-one. i know what that feels like. i was able to win. i did not get a single contribution from anyone in washington, d.c. when i won reelection, they redistrict med me, in with a 24-

year democratic incumbent. in all of those races, every race i have run, i had the blessing of not being the establishment candidate. not being someone that everyone got behind and all the folks saw me as someone who is going to win. i was able to come to the united states congress as well as the senate and do what i thought was right. it was a great blessing. i found out it was a very liberating thing, to not worry about what your leadership thinks because they help to get elected. one of the candidates has done contributions from 400 or 500 lobyists. the beauty of our race is we can go there with clean hands, not having relied upon everybody except hundreds of thousands of donors and volunteers across this country who have helped us.

that is a blessing. it is a blessing to not feel any kind of tether or tie. what i have also found is that if you just focus on doing the right thing, you do not focus on building relationships with people outside of government who may or may not be helpful to you, but stay focused on trying to do what is right, that is what i have done in this campaign. i have not held fund-raisers all over the country. we decided to do this. we left l. -- all our belongings at home. we have lived off of the land. the people of this country have been marvelous in giving us just enough for what we needed. when i am blessed to be able to occupy the oval office, i will be occupying for the people who

helped us across this country, average citizens who have no voice, except the voice of wanting to be free again. [applause] >> thank you, senator. the last question will be from michael smith. >> thank you for coming to our state. as the son of a marine veteran, the national security of our country is an issue that is dear to me. the world we live in appears to be falling into further chaos with iran on the verge of becoming a nuclear power plus the struggles to stabilize iraq and afghanistan, what actions will you take to make sure our tomorrow is greater and more secure than owlet today? >> i put forward a plan on how we are going to deal with the greatest threat.

i put forward a plan about what we should do to overthrow the government, put sanctions on that government, so they will not develop the nuclear program. when i spoke at apac, i was very clear. i said, given the prime minister's speech, the israelis are at their wits' end. they have been waiting and waiting. iran has been enriched uranium enough for six or seven nuclear weapons, four times what is necessary for nuclear power. they continue to enrich. they have 40 different locations. the most sensitive are buried deep in bunkers.

ok. we know what they're doing and yet this president goes out and misrepresents what they do and who they are to the american people. there's one thing i will never do. i will never lie to the american public about effects of this country for my own political gain. i will tell you the truth and i will tell you the whole truth. [applause] >> and the whole truth is there is a group of radical islamists, radical, if not more so than al qaeda and bin laden who run one of the most richest countries in the world which is iran. and unless we're able to stop that government from developing these weapons, those weapons will be used one way or the other, they'll either be used directly against targets which they've already identified, israel being one of them. they will be used indirectly by getting those nuclear materials in the hands of terrorist organizations, to be used all over the world, or they will be used indirectly in the sense they will be protected because they now have nuclear weapons and the ability to retaliate. they will be able to pervade terror of the nonnuclear type, all over the world, including here in the united states,

without fear of being defeated. eight years ago i put forth a bill that said we need to work with the persian people. that's right, the persian people. the people in iran are not arabs. they are persians. they have a proud and great civilization. if you go back and read your bible, it's not a civilization that is hostile to jews. and yet we have them taking over by a bunch of radical islamic thugs. what we need to do is what i've been doing eight years, try to encourage the persian people to take their country back from these radicals. i passed a bill that was fought by barack obama and joe biden in 2006 that would have funded these groups, that would have helped them to carry on a revolution. joe biden and barack obama fought that. eventually it was passed right before the end of the session at the end of 2006. but neither george bush nor

barack obama gave main to those who wanted to overthrow the current government because they were afraid it might upset the iranian government. and when the time came for a revolution which did in define where they were bleeding in the straits holding the signs, saying please, president obama, help us overthrow these people killing americans with i.e.d.'s, overthrow the folks that have been holding americans captives almost continuously since 1979. overthrow the people who threaten the state of israel with annihilation. overthrow the funders of hamas and hezbollah and the funder of assad in syria. and barack obama said no, we're going to join with the radical islamists and legitimatize this election. ladies and gentlemen, in this race, we have one person, served eight years on the armed services committee, has a track record on iran that got it right on what to do to avoid a

war in iran. over the last eight years. and we have a president who has gotten it wrong on every call. [applause] >> i don't know what the most important issue is going to be this fall, but if it's national security, the best candidate by far to go up against barack obama and show the american public how pathetic his foreign policy and how dangerous his foreign policy is, not just for israel, not just for the middle east, but for every american is rick santorum and that's why i'd like your help. [applause] >> thank you, senator. senator, i know that you have a very tight schedule. i know you're supposed to be in montgomery shortly but i want to take a point of personal privilege and ask you a question. the founder of our republican party, i should say conservative

movement in the country, william f. buckley jr., made the statement many years ago and he said this, when you go to the polls, vote for the republican that's most conservative and can win the election. would you explain to alabamians why you're the most conservative who can win in november? >> go back to the issues we know are at the heart of this election, and that is the role of government in your lives, the role of government in business, and government usurping your freedom, your taxes, your money. and look at the key issues that motivated republicans and conservatives across this country that was able to get swing voters to join us in droves to win the 2010 election. there were issues based upon that, none bigger than obamacare. the wall street bailouts where wall street walks away with bonuses and americans sit in homes that are still under water.

and of course, barack obama's attempt in the past and attempt in the future, rest assured, to take over the energy and manufacturing sector of the economy with cap and trade, or cap and tax. [applause] >> if you look at those key issues that were the motivators for the conservative movement, that draw the clearest contrast between president obama and our vision of free people and limited government, there is one candidate that draws that clear contrast. we're not going to win this election because we're going to outspend barack obama 10-1 in the fall. we're not. or 5-1 or 2-1. we'd be lucky to be 1-1. so the person who has the most money, it doesn't matter in a general election because you won't have the most money. you better have the person who has the best contrast, the best ideas, the best vision for our country to remind us who we are. and if you look at all of those

issues on health care, how many people familiar with health savings accounts? when bill clinton was trying to impose hillary care, john kasay and i, now the governor of ohio, we were in the house budget committee and came up with the idea of now health savings account. for 20 years i've been arguing for public sector health care, from the bottom up, individual control, not government mandates. [applause] >> frankly, the other people in this race are just wrong on this issue. both have supported government mandates at the federal level, one for 20 years. the other put forth on a state level a template for obamacare and advocated for it and then told republican audiences through 20 debates he didn't do that when in fact he did. it's one thing to have bad policy in the state, it's another thing to advocate for it and a third thing to not tell the truth about what you did. and we need someone willing to

tell the truth to the american public. we have a clear contrast on the biggest issue of the day between me and president obama. we don't. why would the republican party give that issue away, the most salient and important issue. 75% of voters in the swing states oppose the individual mandate and oppose obamacare. why would we put up anybody who supported both? why do we put up someone who supported the wall street bailout. i didn't. the other two in this race have. why would we support someone who supported cap and trade when the climate was right for everyone believing we need to do something about co-2 emissions. i didn't go along like a well- oiled weathervane but stood tall and said this was bad science, this was political science, not climate science. [cheers and applause] >> we want to elect the most elective conservative, first elect a conservative because that's the one that's going to be most electible.

vote not -- >> ron paul! >> vote not with what the pundits say. don't vote with what the pundits say. trust your own heart and your own head. if you would have voted what the pundits say we would have had george h.w. bush in 1980 and not ronald reagan. and where would we be as a country? someone would have forgotten to raise their lips 10 years sooner. we need someone who can stand up and unapologetically talk about what made this country great, encourage people to believe in themselves, believe in the greatness of the american people and our institutions, not the government. there's one candidate that can do that, and i ask for your support. thank you. >> thank you, senator. thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome karen santorum, senator santorum's wife. and john. >> thank you. thank you. thank you.

.

>> we will do all we can to expose the corporate spending that threatens to drown out voter voices. thank you.

[applause] note're here because we're want to get corporations to destroy america's middle-class. they don't just want to buy our elections. the idea, the very idea that money is speech and that corporations are people is a grotesque distortion of our democracy.

voters are becoming disenfranchise. the fact that so much of the spending is taking place behind closed doors with secret contributions is especially outrageous. when you buy a bag of groceries, for example, you have no idea that the money is going to pollute the environment. or help banks exploit citizens. this is a profound perversion of our democracy. in the case of health care, for example, we have seen health insurance premium dollars support candidates that would end the ability of insurance companies to deny our care as they please.

insurance companies secretly laundered at least $86 million. today, we are now seeing that americans united will pay a $25,000 reward to the first person with documentation indicating that a public corporation has made a secret donation out of corporate funds to an entity working to impact the outcome of an election. we reject is is very simple. we are serious -- it is very simple. we are serious. if corporations want to use corporate dollars, we will expose them. they will do so at their own

risk. we will track them down. and just as rush limbaugh what happens. ask him what happens when you do something that violates the bodies of the majority of the people in this country. you lose your brand. you lose your advertising dollars. you lose everything he set out to do. that is what we are in the business of doing. any corporation that makes secret contributions of corporate dollars to politics. all on the list that must -- that was read all have different programs that will inflict economic damage on offending companies. you can ask target. you can ask walmart. you can ask rush limbaugh. there is damage that will come

from inflicting damage on american voters. the 1% and the republican politicians they own are chipping away at the middle class on one of the greatest inventions we have had in this country, besides political freedom. led by billionaires' like in the koch brothers, insurance companies, extremists on the right, they are all working to undermine our political democracy as well. people want to reclaim america before it becomes the unrecognizable playground and property of the super rich and big corporations that see our country merely as a source of labor and natural resources to exploit their game. we can put a stop.

that is why we're telling america's corporations today to keep their money out of politics. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. robert byrd my name is robert weisman -- good morning. my name is robert weisman. corp. skidded half of the money that went to super pacs. this contribution of wealth from the superpowers is a direct result of the citizens united decisions. it is a previous of the much worse about to come here we intend to stop corporations from taking over control of our country, of our democracy and

the way we live. through the corporate reform corp., public citizen's and people here, on behalf of shareholder resolutions to not spend money on elections, or at least disclose what they are spending, support efforts of the new rules that requires complete set to disclose political elections. we are committed with our colleagues here that is found to be funneling its money to independent organizations that enable it to conceal from the public what it is doing. we know that corporations value secrecy when it comes to political spending. secrecy of ceo's it is or no go. there will not spend money because they know reputation no

harm will come from being associated with disclosure. that is why some are pushing for laws and disclosure. until we get to the day were disclosure is mandated, or restricted by their own sense of market share holiday, we're going to hold them to account. the message is this -- if you think you can run money through independent organizations secretly in the 2012 election, you are wrong. you will be fanned out. you'll be held to account. and you, not our democracy, you will pay the price. thank you very much. [applause] >> good morning. my name is kate.

i am the executive director of the national coalition for accountability in political cap.ling, or ta we fight the average citizen of -- we fight the outrageous citizens united. nearly $1 trillion in pension- fund assets. we are thrilled to be part of this coalition today and promised to take aggressive action, taking it to shareholders, to the fcc, to the streets. secret spending has got to stop. it is bad for our democracy. i say to corporate america today, we are everywhere and we are watching. you have been served. [applause] >> good morning. in a campaign director with the

people's bottom line. there's an alignment amongst the labor movement, the environmental justice community, the civil-rights community, and others who are agreeing and to come to the realization that a just a economy is under attack by irresponsible and a moral corporations. we are mounting state campaigns across the country against those corporations to hold them accountable. we will be mobilizing thousands of people this spring at their share of the meetings and lead up to their shareholder meetings. we will be naming and shaming those corporations or attacking the american way of life. after that, we will name and she and politicians who are putting the interests of irresponsible corporations ahead of the interest of the 99%. that is what we're going to do. [applause]

>> i am aaron black. i am with occupy wall street. this is a systemic problem. simply talking about is not going to make it go away. we are a movement that thrives on direct action. frankly, this issue is one of the main reasons we even exist. we have a lot of support and changed the conversation in this country, but that is not enough. so, the question is, what now? on january 3, but york assembly approved this revolution -- resolution. >to occupy wall street joins grass-roots organizations across the country and calling for the

amendment to the constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech. if human beings, not corporations, are people entitled to constitutional rights. the rights of human beings will never again be granted to fictitious entities or property. we obviously need to change laws, but in the meantime, when i quit to sit idle and watch our elections be sold to the highest bidder. we're not here to blow the whistle, we're here to respond to it. if you see really contribute to scheme and by our elections, we're going to come knocking on your door. and it is not going to just be a couple of us. it will be thousands of us. everywhere you turn your head, we're like a hornet's nest that got wax. scattered everywhere and ready to swarm on a particular target. [applause]

>> so, you've heard for yourself there is a lot of firepower here. there's a lot of will. there's a lot of unity of purpose. this coalition has the ability to reach every part of our country to the grass roots, to the shareholders, to local and state governments. we will do all of the above to make sure we stop the dominance of money in politics. we are resolute. this is a strong beginning to an effort you're going to play out in every part of the country in the coming weeks and months. we welcome your questions. >> they are in the building. >> we know that. >> behind you. >> if you cited corporations and to talk about shareholder

resolution. how're you going to try to pressure the big individual donors were funding super pacs. >> i will start and then others will jump in. look. i think all these pieces go together. i think we have seen that it is very easy to trace which company connects with which donor. we are going to make it clear to corporate america that the public will not accept this. about bohai think they all connect. whether it is a shareholder resolution -- i think they all connect. whether it is a shareholder resolution, whether it is direct action you effort laid out here. it all goes together. whether it is a wealthy individual who was entirely as a share with the publicly traded company or has directed the company itself, it is all for the same purpose. please. >> 2012 is going to be the most

money the election in the history of the united states. we're not only going to see the present raise $1 billion, and the republicans raise $1 billion, but the super pacs, we are fearful that many more billions of dollars will be spent this year on political campaigns for and against candidates. citizens united, for the first time in many years, lifted the lid off of corporations being able to dip into their corporate treasury and spend on elections. that is simply outrageous. what were the five justices thinking who voted in the majority? did they think the day before citizens united came down the corporations and labor unions and wealthy people were not already involved in politics? citizens united has just made it much, much worse. today's effort is to focus on those corporations that may find

a way to spend their money so that they can corporatize our alexian's process. i was -- our election process. i was quoted today and "the wallstreet journal." i basically said, i believe in peace. simply saying, we are watching. >> i guess, i am wondering how -- considering they do not have to disclose. who is donating how much? >> i will start and others can join in. first of all, this is a multi- headed beast. the central theme through all this is that we're going to show corporate america there are serious consequences, whatever form their donations take caught

however they tend to launder them, we're going to show there are consequences. in the end, we believe that many people look at corporate america have an involvement. consumer shareholders, etc.. there will be very uncomfortable when and stand. that is the connective tissue for all these efforts. we know that corporations are now are giving to super pacs. that has been publicly it knowledge and it will be addressed. we know in some cases it is coming out, even though there has been an attempt to hide the donations, information is still coming out. in other cases, you've heard there will be very aggressive efforts to try it out. i think it is fair to say that a lot less stay secret in american society today than it did in the time of watergate. we will find a lot of allies all over the country, including people inside corporations who will want to help us get this

information. >> there is a few things. the first is the $25,000 reward. that is about to clearly bring out information about corporations. that will bring out corporations into our politics. people are going to volunteer that information. we suspect we will get more than one taker. the second thing is that along with lots of organizations, each will be watching what we call a shareholders spring. we will go to shareholders from a country with resolutions to expose and reveal and disclose the political spending of corporations. there were 30 such resolutions in 2009. we're going to see a phenomenal amounts this coming season.

thirdly, all of the organization's are going to fare of disinformation. we know how that works in the digital age with wikipedia and all sorts of things on the internet. in this the digital age, the ability of a corporation to make a secret corporate donation is simply not going to happen. those days are over. they think they can make those corporations about -- destinations without the public finding out, they are wrong. and >> corporations are giving money to the chamber of commerce, for example. they will say they're giving to the chamber of converse -- chamber of commerce. are you targeting them, are only the purpose of political giving. >> your question is a good one. you are right.

they can put it through the chamber of commerce. but we will be watching that as well. there are many members of the chamber who are angry with the chamber spending as much money as they spent on political campaigns. and on who they spend that money on. we will be watching that as well as watching shareholder meetings. other kinds of opportunities to sift through how corporations are placing their money and where they are placing their money. if they do it to the chambers of commerce, we will also be sharing those out. i just to say that when we send out 700 letters this fall, we are getting letters all the time were lots of good corporations are saying they're not going to use any of their corporate treasury. we know of groups like ben and jerry's ice cream that has a campaign trying to get money out of politics. they have hundreds of

corporations signing pledges not to give any money through this new process. so, we're going to watch and all those areas, including the chamber of commerce. >> as i understand it, the corporations involved are not publicly traded household names. >> on the first question of boycotts, i would like to remind you that what happened to the target corp. happened without reaching the level of a boycott. it was an on-line petition. a lot of people, a lot of organizations. the on-line petition gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures. that alone -- the media coverage, the protests, turned, -- turned target away from participatory spending that it could through citizens united. target, quietly a few months ago, changed its policy so would no longer allowed itself that

kind of spending. there are good corporations that have chosen a path of restraint and disclosure. there are corporations that have learned of the hard way, like target, and have pacbacked away. boycotts on extraordinary tool. we have a lot of ability to use that tool. that is very much on the table. even without a, there's been a huge impact in target's case. -- even without it, there's been a huge impact in target's case. on the surface, the companies to not appear to have a big profile. there are still a lot of pressure points, a lot of access points. they still often have to deal with state and local governments. they often have investments from pension funds. something we have learned over the years -- the board of

directors. prominent people who are concerned about the reputations. they might think differently about a pension been directed at them. there are pressure points for even less well-known corporations. >> as an answer to that, i think the first point is that citizens united is a disaster. it is making a mockery of our democracy. we believe that we need a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, and establish the corporations to not have the right to spend money. nor do individuals have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money. short of a constitutional amendment, we national law that requires disclosure. rules from the fec. i think we all agree on that. we are all working for that. what this effort is about, and the absence of that, what are we going to do. the calculations of corporations

is there going to get away with it. what we know, so far, relatively small number of corporations, closely held and related to individuals. the big, brand-name corporations are not spending money in the super pacs and to not plan to. they say so. lookit with the trade association for wall street says. it will not run money through super pacs. but it why the chamber of commerce opposes the president's proposal for an executive order requiring companies to disclose their political contributions. they expressly said, we not think companies will give us money to run political ads if they're going to be held accountable. if the public is going to know what happens. i think your point is right that some companies have more reputation of interest than others. all have some additional interest.

when they got embroiled in a bit of political controversy, there were not able to sustain themselves. a strong ceo was not able to hold onto his job. the ultimately care and is not in a considerable way. the calculation today is now change for corporations. if you the money into the electoral process. you better expect it will be found out and you will pay. >> i'm with the news service here. forsaw, i am fascinated by the green tie and the green lapel pin. -- first of all, i am fascinated by the green tie and the greek lapel pin. [laughter] are we going to be about to hear what they represent?

what racial and ethnic diversity have. >> the people behind represent all the corporations listed in the beginning. in net interest of keeping things tight, we chose a sample. this is going to be a 50-state effort. representing every kind of people, every kind of organization, including local state governments. grass-roots organizations. i think what is so striking about the response of citizens united in a country so divided in every way, this is-was something that unites us. as mad york democrat, republican, independent -- people do not want money in politics. -- it does not matter if you are a democrat, republican, independent -- people do not want money and politics. >> i want to know if any hispanic folks are represent any particular groups. >> we will give you an opportunity to meet ever when

right after. right now, i want to make sure we all the questions out. i hear your point loud and clear. any other questions? yes. >> that is not always disclosed. is there a difference there? >> i will start. again, i'm sure others can go on. >> we all, first and foremost, want to make sure that the effect of citizens united are rollback. that is for every kind of organization. i think a lot of us would say, very simply, there is a profound difference between the firepower of corporate america, the sheer mass of money they can bring, and the self-interest involved, versus any other element of our society. we are deeply concerned.

the floodgates of corporate money or opened and our democracy will not survive it. >> i will add to that, there's a world of difference between corporations and unions. the first is that corporations exist for the purpose of maximizing profits. unions are democratic organizations that exist for the purpose of helping workers express themselves in the workplace and in politics. the second issues on the matter of disclosure. we're here because corporations to not have to disclose their c6's.ations to c4's and unions have to disclose all their activity. any expenditure has to be disclosed. they have enormous disclosure requirements and corporations are not subject to. that is why there's a world of

difference between the two. classic, unions were outspent 20 to one. when it comes to firepower, corporations have it all. >> a notice a press release makes mention of crossroads gps. >> i will start, and i'm sure bob watson the decision on this as well. again. the work that my office did in the beginning in the months after citizens united was directed at both sides of the spectrum. democrat, republican, left, right. whenever spectrum you want to look at because the central point is to painstakingly rollback the results of citizens united in real terms. to try to preserve our democracy

and make sure that they don't keep using the tools that was given to them from citizens united. their differences, as you heard, between the kind of factors on the playing field. >> yes. >> [inaudible] they could be facing economic damage. >> let the chips fall where they may. >> i want to get a record for this, too. yes. let me say couple words about why. one is a matter of principle, obviously. we take this issue seriously. we now corporate money in the election process, period.

no corporate money in the process. same deal. citizens united is not a republican decision. it is a pro corporate decision. it will continue to have severe impacts on both major political parties. it is changing with the democratic political party is. it has to. it changes what kind of funding you can get. amazingly, politicians are accountable. if more corp. americans into the democratic party, it took a different democratic party. if more corporate money comes into the republican party it will be different. the citizens united decision is a bipartisan, trans-partisan disaster. that relates to all the

different parties. >> i would like to follow up on her question. how do you pressure -- we've been talking of the corporations. how the pressure people like the brothers. the big individual givers were basically accountable only to themselves. >> i think even the koch brothers, and they're probably the best example. they have made their decisions and are comfortable throwing their wealth around. but their companies do have direct consumer relationships. omni hotels, for example. i think, in the end, even the super rich and the ideologically motivated are affected when they see their companies get in trouble because the public is unhappy with them.

i think, in the end, we're also trying to say, and it comes to a lot of a people are saying here, there are a lot of people sitting on the fence and corporate america. there are a lot of people in corporate america trying to decide what to do. i think every time they see one of these controversies, every time to see how complicated this gets, how many unintended consequences there are to undertake this kind of spending, i think it is causing more of them to wonder if it is not time for them to step back. maybe that doesn't reach all the way to the koch brothers, then maybe it is not a good idea. i will answer this. i think the point we have said is that every tool is on the table today. we as a coalition are going to systematically pursued a range of options. we talked about shareholder actions, consumer actions, what the state and local pension

funds can do, legal action, etc. . at some poor women decide there is a consumer boycott, will not made that yet. koch re going to pay the brothers a visit, i promise. [laughter] >> i present that answer because in december of 2010 i had never heard of the koch brothers. we pay them a visit and last january. fullys before they're exposed in the wisconsin issue and became household words. the one thing i learned is they do not like the publicity. for 10 years they have had a secret sessions in june and january to try to corporatize our democracy.

many of these groups have not only shot a light on the brothers, bond other individual, wealthy persons who want to move our democracy more towards a plutocracy. it was bill moyers and said this is the most dangerous moment in american history. we will either be a nation of and five for the people, or of and by a wealthy and large corporations. this is an effort to take back democracy. >> one more question, in the back. >> i was wondering if you have anything indicating the actions going on. >> that is a level of sophistication have not yet reached. you'll see a lot of combined action. thank you everyone, very much. -- thank you @ everyone very much. -- thank you, everyone.

[applause] unbelievab

>> in a few moments, and newt gingrich and rick santorum speak to reform at the alabama republican party. and "washington journal" is lifve several live events to talk about today. we hear from the heads of northern and southern command's , national security issues in north and south america. both on c-span3 at 9:30 a.m. eastern. at 10:00 eastern on c-span,

secretary of energy, steven chu, will testify. solyndra, which filed for bankruptcy, received loans from this program. also on c-span, our road to the white house coverage of the alabama and mississippi primaries begins tonight at 7:00 eastern. ulysses speeches on the republican presidential candidates and the results. you can also join in the conversation by phone and facebook, as well as follow us on twitter. c-span's 2012 local content video to work takes our programming on the road the first weekend of each month. march feeder -- march featured shreveport, louisiana. >> he was born here and lived here motives -- most of his life. he started collecting books would use a teenager and

continued interest 80's. he accumulated over 200,000 volumes. if we have a jam in the collection, it will be this one. it is one of the books i am most proud of. it is in the original binding from 1699. it was once owned by a very famous person. you can see his written his name, i. newton. we cannot put out much anymore because it is starting to flake away on the title page. >> at the pioneer a high-pitched museum. >> it is a long stretch from what it is today. you consider that, the things that we take for granted today when we go to the doctor, things like the instruments being as a germ-free as possible. for the doctor has washed his hands. weak news -- we used the term its loosely for doctors who were

teaching modern medicine. a lot of them were self-taught. they would just learn as they went. >> our lcv cities to work continues in little rock, arkansas. >> the mississippi and alabama primaries are today. last night, the alabama party hosted newt gingrich and rick santorum. ron paul and mitt romney did not participate. this is a little less than one hour and a half. >> thank you so much. alabama andnians are excited.

-- alamians are excited. [applause] all republican candidates were invited to participate. we're honored that newt gingrich and senator santorum have accepted our invitation. [applause] as i said before, this is the first time we've ever done anything like this. we are privileged to be able to host this forum. i also want to think of the local media. and though it has been an inconvenience for some of the to get here, we're thankful for you being here. thank you for the coverage you're giving this campaign. thank you for showing are good side of alabama. i think all of our sides are good. thank you so much. [applause] all eyes are going to be on alabama tomorrow. they'll be looking at you.

they're trying to figure out who you are going to choose to be our next president. >> i am sure we have a diverse opinion here. i am sure we have a diverse opinion here and that is what makes america so great. i want to encourage everyone of you to please go out to vote for the candidate of your choice. that is what this process is all about. [applause] if you want to replace barack obama in the white house, and you want to take alabama, let's hear it. [applause] i think we have some enthusiasm here tonight.

i predict we will have a record turnout at the polls. just to tell you a little bit about the format tonight, we do have the two presidential candidates here. they will come out and speak for 15 minutes. after that will have a series of questions by a team of panelists that we have selected. they will be joining us over here in just a few moments. representing approximately 10,000 independent businesses, on their behalf, she is representing elected officials. rose mary serves on various boards and commissions including the department of human resources, welfare and reform tax force and alumni board of directors. daniel moss is a 16-year-old sophomore at good old high school. he is an officer of teenager publicans and for the last three years, daniel has hosted his own television show called the freedom report.

[applause] our third panelist is michael smith, a banking software analyst who serves on the board of directors overseeing the new state run college savings plan. michael and his wife live in birmingham where he is the treasurer of greater birmingham young republicans. that is our lineup for tonight. now we are getting ready to hear from one of our presidential candidates. senator richard john santorum, better known as rick, is a native of virginia but grew up in west virginia and pennsylvania. his father was an immigrant who came to the united states at age 7 from italy. santorum received his undergraduate degree from pennsylvania state university. he received a law degree with honors from the dickinson school of law. he and his wife have seven children. they lost an eighth child shortly after birth.

senator santorum was elected to the u.s. house representive in 1990. following his departure from the senate, he worked as a consultant, private practice lawyer and contributed. please help me welcome senator santorum. [applause] [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. it is great to be here in alabama, thank you. thank you. thank you very much. i appreciate that wonderful

southern hospitality and that great greeting. we have had a great view days here in the state of alabama. as i say in every speech again, this is the most important election of your lifetime, and i don't care how old you are. [applause] this is an election about big things. it is about the economy and the importance of this economy, getting jobs created again in america, where we have a president who has put forth an agenda that robs you of your freedom and new taxes and trust to regulate every aspect of your life, passing more regulations than any president in the first four years of his term. this is an economy that is struggling. down here on the gulf coast in alabama and mississippi and louisiana, how important it is that we have drilling in our gulf and we explore for energy in this country, and we have a president who is absolutely

crushing it. he has a two-letter energy policy, n-o. when it comes to drilling in deep water, he said no. he has said no to alaska, federal lands, no. in my backyard, a come from western pennsylvania. we did not own any oil or gas wells, but my grandfather was a coal miner. we see there, even with private lands and gas being explored there, and oil coming out of the ground in eastern ohio, we have a government who is putting that at risk by brent and regulations over something called hydraulic fracturing, and we have been doing in this country since world war ii. now that it is driving down the price of natural gas, the president wants to think of regulating it.

the only place he has said yes is helping the brazilians drill off their shores. when it came to the keystone pipeline, what did he say? no. we need a president that will say yes to energy development in this country, that will create tens of thousands of jobs, lower gas prices, lower natural gas prices. we need a president who understands what gets this economy going. we have put forth a plan that will get this economy going and other key areas, not just energy but manufacturing. i come from western pennsylvania. i grew up in public housing. the first 18 years of my life. i can tell you working in that town in pennsylvania, i know what about the people employed in gave them the opportunity to

rise, and the tremendous knitting together of a community when everybody, no matter what your skill level, has an opportunity to get a job and provide for themselves and their family, have the pride of going to work every day, participating in civic and community organizations. that is how america works. a big part of that for small town america was manufacturing. the only person in this race who has put for the bold plan, not just for energy development, but for manufacturing, to create an opportunity for small town and rural america to get the resource based economy going, get the manufacturing based economy going. we see an aggregation of people into big cities because the economic opportunities just not there across america as they once were. we are going to change that. we will bring in jobs that were shipped overseas. we will cut the corporate rate

for everybody in half, but for manufacturers, we would say bring those jobs back to america and employ people in small town america. [applause] we need someone who is serious about shrinking the size and scale of federal government, right? [applause] we want someone who has actually put forth a plan that will get us there. five trillion dollars in cuts over five years. a balanced budget in five years. i pledged to spend less than a year before every year until we get to a balanced budget. [applause] big glass tower in going to do it? you do it the way i did it when i was in the house and led the fight on the floor of the senate. in the entitlements and the federal level and get them back to the states where they belong, not at the federal

level. [applause] we did it with welfare reform. i authored the bill that was in the house as a member of the ways and means committee. i managed the bill and went up against ted kennedy and daniel patrick moynihan and bill clinton. harry reid is nothing to deal with. [applause] we can get it passed. we just need to go out to the american public and tell them, we don't need 72 assessments that the federal level. let's get it back to the state and local level. let's do what works. the amazing thing is with welfare, when you cut the welfare rolls in half across the country, poverty rates went down and employment went up. that is exactly what we want. [applause]

we have a track record on the big issues of the day and the social issues of the day on the domestic front. obamacare is the reason i am in this race. [applause] karen and i decided to enter this race. it was not a rational decision. we have seven children, ages 20-3. not the best time in our lives to be out running for president, but we decided to do it because we could not look our children in the eyes and realize what kind of country we would be handing them if obamacare is implemented, and every single american, not 40%, but every single american will be dependent on the federal government for benefits, and not just any benefit, the benefit of your help and your life. once that happens, once every

american now has to look to washington and pay tribute to those in power, you see what happens. it already see which of some of the regulations that have been put in place. the government telling you, we are going to give you rights. be careful. when the government says they give you rights, they can take that away. [applause] they can threaten to take it away, and they can tell you how to exercise that right, whether you want to purchase insurance and what they sell you, they make you buy, they tax you a certain amount, they tax your employers a certain amount, they pay doctors a certain amount. if you don't like some of the benefits, even if they are against your religious convictions, too bad.

you will do what you are told with this new right that you have. you see, the problem is, government is not the source of rights in this country. [applause] ultimately, that is the most important issue in this race. where do our rights come from? who is that that should be in control of this country? i decided to run for president, along with my wife karen, because we believe that obamacare is the game changer for america. it is game changer on the very foundation level of one word, liberty. liberty is at stake in this

election. economic development, yes. jobs, yes. energy, all of those issues, vitally important. but at the core of its, we have a president who believes in ruling you from the top down. that he knows best how to run your life. but that is not what made america great. it is in the eyes of president obama. nine months ago reacting to paul ryan's budget, he was waxing eloquent, reading from a teleprompter -- my teleprompter is way in the back, you just cannot see it. he said americans, look at all these entitlement programs that

paul ryan would propose to cut back. he said america is a better country because of all the entitlements. he said, i will go one step further. america was not a great country until these entitlement programs. that is how the president sees america. he sees america as a country that is great when government takes money from some and gives it to those who know best how to spend it, and know what is fair and allocating it and giving it to other people. that is what the president believes makes america the greatest country in the history of the world. ladies and gentlemen, that is not the reason my grandfather came to this country back in 1925. there was no social security. there is no medicare, food stamps, no housing programs. there were not any government benefits except one, freedom, and it was enough. [cheers and applause]

ronald reagan in his farewell address that a caution to everyone. the final word she said as president of the united states to the american people, the last two paragraphs of his speech, he talked about the concern he had for the future of our country, because institutions like schools, higher education, the media, the popular culture, were teaching a very different story about who we are. he was concerned that america would forget what made us great. the greatness of ronald reagan was not just his policy. the greatness of ronald reagan is he knew where we came from. he understood what made america the greatest country in the history of the world. i want to thank the tea party, because what they have done --

what they have been able to do over the past couple of years is resurrect a document that many consider to be a dead letter in washington d.c., something called the constitution of the united states. [applause] a constitution is a great and important document. it is the house of america, the operator's manual, something we have not paid much attention to. we need to get back to our constitutional balance, but it is only half of the story. the constitution alone is insufficient. it is potentially dangerous, as we saw when countries like france adopted a similar constitution at the very same time. but their constitution, unlike ours, was not anchored to another document, a document that anchored and tethered it. that of course is the declaration of independence.

[applause] people ask, what makes america exceptional? why are we different? you can go to the constitution, but that is not it. it is these words that you all probably were taught in grade school and memorized, but we don't really remember or even recognize as americans how transformational they were. we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. [applause] when the boy read the constitution and say we get our rights from the constitution, that is wrong. the constitution does not give us rights. us rights.