>> what do you think of when you see at tree? a treatment for cancer? alternative fuel for our cars? do you think of hope for the environment, or food, clothing, shelter? we do. weyerhaeuser, growing ideas. >> health care is a human right.

>> freedom is a human right. >> this week on "inside washington," the supreme court wrestles with the health-care law. >> it changes the relationship of the government to the individual. >> marco rubio endorses mitt romney. >> i am not going to be vice president. >> we plan to save this country from the future of debt, doubt, and decline. >> the national conversation over the killing of trayvon martin continues. >> trayvon is our son, but trayvon is also your assigned. -- your son. >> after my election, i have more flexibility. >> an open mic bites the president at the south korean summit. >> this is to russia, without question our number one geopolitical foe. captioned by the

national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> the supreme court took up the affordable health care act this week. it was a rare three-day oral argument. outside the court, a full throated display of democracy, with protesters, politicians, and yes, pundits. it was on a date two that the justices took up the mandate, the provision that americans and bite it health insurance or pay a fine. we just heard justice kennedy say that it changes the relationship of the government to the individual in a fundamental way. his vote could be key, and so could it chief justice roberts'. justice scalia suggested that the mandate goes, the whole thing to go. >> if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute is gone. >> nina, you reported that i.t.

is clear that there are five of votes to strike down the mandate, and if there are five votes to strike that down, there are five votes to strike down the whole thing. >> i said that if there are five the votes to strike down the mandate, it looks like there are five votes to strike down all law. i am not sure what they were going to do. it looks like it is in the hands of justice kennedy, and he seems to be agonizing. but when justice kennedy says that something changes the liberty relationship between the federal government and the individual, that is a reason those that are on the side of trying to defend this position to worry. >> i want to ask you about roberts later. let me move to mark. justice scalia said that whether we strike it down or leave it in place, the congressional process will never be the same. do you agree with that? >> no, i don't agree with that.

i think congress will react based upon the decision. and we are left -- if the mandate is eliminated and we are left with the other provisions, you have to provide for pre- existing conditions and, for children up to the age of 26, congress will have to do something, because otherwise the price of insurance will go through the roof. >> colby, your turn. the argument against the law is that it is government overreach, you are forcing americans to buy a service that they either did not what our needs. couldn't you say the same thing about medicare? >> professor charles fried in conversation with ezra klein of "the washington post" addressed this question, and he was ronald reagan's solicitor general. he made the point that healthcare is a national problem that can be regulated, should be regulated, and has been regulated, as with medicare, and

the mandate should be held to be constitutional. that is his position. it is a position that a lot of people can take who are very conservative as well. >> charles, if the court strikes down oil law, people aren't -- the whole law, it will make a single payer system inevitable. do you agree with that? >> if i had to choose between that system, the canadian system, or the monstrosity that obamacare would be or perhaps will become financially ruinous, incredibly dishonest, at an unworkable, i would choose the canadian system and i think the american people would not help but before we go to a canadian system, -- and i think the american people what. but before we go to a canadian system, try a conservative alternative, tort reform, competition, and that would be the more profitabl -- proximal alternative. if that does not work, we will end up with a canadian or british-style system. >> nina, i heard you on msnbc

with the chalk talk about the politics of this thing, that it makes -- with chuck todd about the politics of this thing, that makes chief justice roberts nervous? >> he is the chief justice of the united states, not the supreme court. that is his title. the great chief justices understand that this is an institution who is to be protected and whose authority is to be protected, and the 5-4 decision does not help that a lot. he may not have a lot of control over that. the court seems to be split over the same kind of ideological lines you see in the public. >> but it comes down in the heart of a presidential campaign. if the court strikes down the mandate, does it help or hurt president obama -- >> you can argue that round or flat and people do. i can tell you want a thing, the white house is in sort of a panic. >> they can not think this was going to happen --

>> they do not want to be discussing health care. >> i think in the short run this will be a defeat for the president, because his signature achievement is shown to be unconstitutional. he is supposed to be a constitutional expert, so that is not good. but in the longer run, after this year and election, it could have the effect of galvanizing liberals, who would say that we work for 100 years to achieve this and we passed it through the house and senate and the presidency, and a rogue court struck it down. it could have the effect on the left that roe v. wade in striking out abortion laws in radicalizing and energizing the religious right. >> the losing side has the energy. if it is upheld, it becomes a galvanizing issue for republicans going into the election. if it is overturned, i think it

becomes an organizing principle for the democrats and for president obama. the court has suffered -- on nina's point on john roberts, the court has suffered as an institution. it has gone from 61% approval down to 46, following the citizens united case, where 80% of americans think it is the wrong thing to have unlimited money in american politics. >> remember franklin delano roosevelt had the new deal plan, and the supreme court at that time struck down many provisions. to its own chagrin, because the public was galvanized around puerto rico. -- was galvanized around fdr. i am not sure this would be a defeat for barack obama if they capt. to strike down in this

health care law. >> fdr also tried to stack the court. >> i did not want to get to that. >> part of the reason that did not work is because the court changed. justice ginsburg says that the whole purpose of insurance is to spread out the risk. can you talk about that a little bit? >> there was a lot of that during the arguments put some of the critics said that the problem with most of the people on the court is that they had government insurance all of their lives. most of them have worked for the federal government most of their lives, as either judges or officials, and they have always had easy insurance, very good insurance. they don't worry about some enormous thing with the insurance industry says that you not reached the cap, we're paying you any more money.

those caps are already gone as part of this law. if it goes down, we will go back to having caps, we will go back to having 26-year-olds, 25-year- olds not covered. they're also in this bill thousands of things that have nothing to do with this -- and drug regulations, all kinds of things. i kept getting e-mail this week from people who deal with that stuff to go, "what is going to happen?" as a friend of mine put it, a legal expression, "god only knows." >> the point nina makes is key to this. there is no question that congress is given power by the constitution to levy taxes. i think that this argument about does the congress have constitutionally the power to require you to do a private transaction -- that is why

single payer becomes the logical -- >> but is the mandate i tax? >> i know that, but nobody questions, not even co -- clement or the libertarian scholars argues that congress doesn't have the power to levy a tax. single payer becomes the inevitable next stop on this progression. >> is the mandate a tax? >> according to the president of the united states, absolutely not. remember, he kept saying over and over again -- >> he said it was not a tax increase. >> he had to pretend it was not a tax because americans don't like taxes. he had to pretend that no tax increases, etc. the importance of what is going on this week is beyond health care. it is a constitutional hinge

point in american history if it is overturned. colby spoke about the new deal. for 60 or 70 years it has always been assumed that we can expand the power of the federal government did the reason the liberals were so shocked by what happened in the court today -- remember how nancy pelosi dismissed questions about its constitutionality, "of course it is constitutional"? they did not even think about it. when the first objections were raised, the mainstream media dismissed it as the cranky element. the nation heard serious arguments from the justices about really having limits, respecting the idea of enumerated powers. that is what i think was so important. >> about every scholar, lawyer, big business lawyer initially thought that the idea of challenging this was a joke. then it became a laugher, and in court it became a real reality.

>> mitt romney picked up high- profile endorsement this week. >> rick santorum is from a good guy and his running a good campaign. we have to read this in background and on some issues, but basically a good guy, a -- we have differences in background and on some issues, but basically a good guy, and i appreciate him saying he would be part of the administration with me. >> that was romney on a "the tonight show." santorum got off to a testy start, saying that romney at would be the worst against obama -- >> only on obamacare, very, very obvious. >> he was on the steps of the supreme court saying "i would be happy to be his vice president." monti picked up endorsements from marco rubio, that is a big one, and from the first president bush. >> it signals that the tried it is coming together. -- tribe is coming together to

it has all passion and excitement of a bride mailed in from turkey. [laughter] not exactly an intense, emotional encounter, but a sense of inevitability. >> how important is the rubio endorsement? >> i have had a lot of images over romney, but i've never envisioned him as a turkish bride. [laughter] it is obvious that they are sending a signal to the santorum and gingrich. it is not going to have an effect on the electorate. rubio is your tea party guy. president bush sr. is the ultimate in the establishment. everybody is saying it's over, guys. it is getting surreal. santorum had a rally at the jelly belly candy company.

i think he is looking for a golden ticket like "charlie and the chocolate factory," except it doesn't exist and he is not going to get one. >> i have never been to the jelly belly place -- >> nor have i. >> i would like to go there. romney is going to pick up the endorsement of paul ryan, another establishment figure. this is the inevitable thing that is happening now. >> i am glad you mentioned paul ryan, because the ryan budget passed the house this week -- >> and romney embrace that. >> it is not going to make it in the senate, is it? >> it does not have a prayer in the senate. the senate passed a mask transportation bill by 70-plus votes, or more than that, and it the house?ast

that really is a bipartisan bill, and it cannot get past the house? >> on the ryan bill, do we get into another brawl on deficit reduction? >> absolutely. this budget demands and requires that committees, with -- six separate house committees, with further cuts. you recall the great anxiety and pain and anguish we went through. this would reopen at all of a sudden. it becomes a campaign document. the two parties have established themselves. republicans have played to the tea party, mollified them, assuaged them. the democrats are playing to their constituencies. whether it is medicare, social security, or what, they are not going to touch a single gray hair on that beautiful head. >> one thing that you left out

of your presentation, which is that while the ryan budget passed the house by a reasonable majority, the budget of the president was defeated in the house by 414-0. which is exactly as happened last year, when it was rejected by the senate in 201197-0. when we're talking about serious budgets -- in 2011 by 97-0. when we're talking abut service budgets, which the senate has not done in three years, the republicans but being responsible are ahead. >> that was an orchestrated defeat. >> shut out is a shut out. >> the erskine bowles proposal was brought up at the house of representatives. it went down in flames, mostly

republicans, even some democrats. it showed that the administration was wise to not even push it because they knew it was going to fail. >> florida shooting victim trayvon martin's parents come to capitol hill. >> a lot of people can relate to our situation, and it breaks their heart like bricks mind. -- breaks mine. >> that is the mother of trayvon martin, the high school student shot dead in florida by a neighborhood watch captain, one at george zimmerman. zimmerman says he acted in self- defense. he has not been addressed, and that is set off protests in washington -- not in arrested, and that has set off protests in washington and across the nation. democratic congressman bobby rush was kicked off the floor of the house for wearing a hoodie. martin was wearing one when he was killed. it has called attention to

"standard ground" law -- "stand your ground" laws like the one in florida. >> that law is an abomination. this guy zimmerman called the police 58 times in one year to report suspicious activity. you are giving citizens who don't have the training, discipline, the experience of a law enforcement officer a lethal weapon and giving them authority to act in place of police. i think that invites this kind of horror. i am not sure it is the only cause of this, but i would like to see laws like that looked at and repealed. it is the wrong idea to have citizens do police work, and this is what can happen in those circumstances. >> you often to see this, wannabes. he was a wannabe.

he was trying to joined the police. you give them a gun and it is a recipe for disaster. >> a couple of years ago, up to 100. >> the point that charles mix is absolutely valid and persuasive, and that is the first. now, i really do. >> i would like to reconsider my position. >> the police are opposed to this law. the police go through training. the police are taught restraint. the police are taught ways to bring negotiated settlement to this. i don't know mr. zimmerman, i await the investigation, but i think at this bad public policy. >> the justice department is now in this, colby. >> a lot of people tell me, "you

write a lot about crime. look at the furor over this one case. what is the difference?" here is the difference. come with me to this superior court of the district of columbia or to the d.c. jail, you will find young man in those systems to have committed crimes, whoever shot somebody, killed somebody. the difference in this case is that somebody shot an unarmed kid and that individual is free. that individual did not go through the criminal justice system. that is where the outrage comes from. they cannot understand an unarmed individual shooting someone and not having it at least adjudicated in the court of law. detroit, washington, d.c., any other area with black on black crime, they are prosecuted. >> zimmerman gets the benefit of the doubt from the police immediately.

the police chief has now stepped aside, and the victim does not, apparently. >> i think he still has the gun. >> i say he was a victim, but zimmerman says he was acting in self-defense. >> his story involves having his woundsroken and having o on the back of his head. we have now look at video, and it is is not conclusive, looking at, it is hard to believe that that has happened. a good be. we will find out it but in the absence of evidence, his story is any question. -- in question. >> after my election i have more flexibility. first of all, is the mike on? >> that is the president joking about his open mic comment to the president of russia. the president was talking about the missile defense shield in

europe. mitt romney said it was no time for the president to be pulling punches, that russia is our number one geopolitical enemy, which sounds like cold war talk. the speaker of the house would not criticize him while he was overseas, but he wrote him a letter when he got back, strongly worded. "i and other members of the house have expressed concern about your administration's apparent willingness to make unilateral concessions to russia that undermine our missile defense capabilities." is this a legitimate foreign policy debate or a political deal, colby? >> i think it is legitimate when the president makes that kind of comment. i would not go so far as to bring back joe mccarthy, i don't think we should have a citizen's arrest. but he has got some explaining to do. it is not the kind of thing you expect the president to say in private to the leader of another country, particularly on an issue that is crucial to

national defense. >> i am always amazed by seasoned politicians who are careless around open mikes. >> i confess that i saw less to this and other people did. when i read it, i thought it was pretty serious. when i looked at it, i thought it was just political nice talk to a visitor, and as jon stewart said, the worst thing was the response, "i will pass the message on to vladimirrrr." >> i disagree. i don't think there's any way you can spin it. it is embarrassing -- >> oh, it's embarrassing. >> it raises questions about what the policy will be after the election. on your point about seasoned politicians about an open mikes, why not, if you are going to have a conversation, outdoors? in a room with any russian, you

are sure there is going to be a bug. [laughter] outdoors with bird. >> it is obviously very serious. he is telling the dictator of another country "wait until my last election." unlike you, i don't have to answer to any electorate. here is the question, why is he dealing on missile defense in the first place? the treaty that regulates missile defense expired in 2002. we withdrew in 2002. we have no obligation. the russians had been trying to curtail our missile defense for 30 years. we have a tremendous technological lead, and it improves everywhere our strategic advantage. it offends our country. why is he dealing, even offering to deal in the future, which he won't even speak about today?

because he knows he will be hurt in the election if people understand he will be dealing in a way after he is reelected and then on accountable. >> this serious problem he has is that he caused people to raise questions about what he would the second time that he is not telling us about. that plays into the hands of his critics, it plays into the hands of other countries concerned about commitments. >> all right, you get the last word. we will see you next week.