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 independe

>> this question is directed towards professor karlan. if congress can force you to buy health insurance, how do you make all of the rest of the powers superfluous, and enumerated powers tug congress of bankruptcy law, and establish post offices -- it seems as they became so specific as to those subjects, how would they force you to buy health insurance to, maybe it is a commerce question in general, but how you prevent from rendering of the other powers superfluous. >> i do not think --those go to the power of congress, not the power to make you buy stamps, so i do not think those would be rendered superfluous by a requirement congress continue to buy something being sold by a market. >> i just had a question. did you mention -- you mentioned obamacare and romneycare, and you talk about police power of the states versus federal government, so is there anything in the constitution that would protect us from state assertion of power? what are the benefits or drawbacks of having states regulate health care versus the federal government? >>

pamela karlan code directs the stanford law school clinic. she has published numerous articles and a leading constitutional law textbook. she writes a column on legal issues, and she is also an accomplished supreme court advocate, having worked on more than 70 cases, including are gearing -- arguing seven before then on and on court. she is also an inspiring teacher. she has been selected twice to the graduating class of stamford. professor carlin is a member of law institute, the american academy of arts and sciences, and the academy of lawyers, but she has not been elected to a movie database yet, so let me briefly it set the stage before turning it over. congress passed the affordable care are in march 2010. that legislation was controversial, leading to some 30 lawsuits challenging the act, a conversation on the federal government and fully booking the calendar for the next three years. today is our turn to add to that growing list of talks, and our debate today is especially timely, because 10 days from now, the last supreme court brief

karlan, we will give you some extra time. >> it is a pleasure to be here. 30 years ago, i sat roughly where many of you are sitting today. unlike everyone else in the audience, i was the only person to attend the first meeting of the federalist society at yale. it is a pleasure to welcome all of you to my backyard and continue a conversation where i am not sure we will convince each other of much other than that we all care about the constitution. this mandate assumes there is an implicit contract between households and society based on the notion of health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. if a young man wrecks his car and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. 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 for not. if we find he spent his money on things other than insurance, we may be angry. but we will not deny him services even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tax. that