with us we have louis michael seidman and roger pilon. mr. pilon, tell us what the 10th amendment means to you. guest: is to be understood in the context of the night and 10th amendment. they can be thought of as wrapping up the period. the ninth tells us we have rights enumerated and not enumerated. the tent tells us we have rights only enumerated in the constitution. what you have with the 9th and 10th a man is a restatement of limited government first set forth in the declaration of independence. it is restated in this wrapup, the last two documents from the, foundingthe in the bill of -- the last to the documents from the founding period, in the bill of rights. host: you say the 10th amendment is widely misunderstood. why is that? guest: need to go into a little background first. my good friend roger is wearing his james madison tie. james madison was the author of the 10th amendment. it is ironic he is wearing this tied. at this point in his career, james madison was a strong believer in federal power in the national government. his most

then fawn johnson then louis michael seidman and roger pilon michael seidman and roger pilon of the cato institute

. >> brown: michael seidman, wrong omondy? >> i thought he was right on monday, he was right on tuesday. what he said seems to me to be completely unexceptional. >> brown: 1860 was against the court and what the court had done. so there's nothing unusual about this. the president didn't threaten anybody, he didn't try to pressure the court. he's excited to his about the constitutionality of the health care bill and he... it may not be tactically wise for him to say what he said but he certainly has a right to say it. >> brown: why do you see this as different from these past examples? >> well, he said it's somehow improper for a group of unelected people to strike down a law that has been passed by the congress. that's literally what he said. as we all know, since "marbury v. madison" that's perfectly okay. on tuesday he refined what he said on monday and court. >> brown: before it was decided? >> before it was decided. roosevelt was vocal in criticizing decisions of decisions of the court but not deliberations of the court. t

. >> brown: michael seidman, wrong on monday?i thought he was right on monday, he was right on tuesday. what he said seems to me to be completely unexceptional. >> brown: unexceptionable given past... >> yes, as long as there has been a supreme court there have been political attacks on the court. some of our most revered presidents-- as your setup piece mentioned-- in addition to roosevelt, thomas jefferson ran against the court in 1800. abraham lincoln, his entire platform in 1860 was against the court and what the court had done. so there's nothing unusual about this. the president didn't threaten anybody, he didn't try to pressure the court. he's excited to his about the constitutionality of the health care bill and he... it may not be tactically se for him to say what he said t h ceainly has rig to say it. >> brown: why do you see this as different from these past examples? >> well, he said it's somehow improper for a group of unelected people to strike down a law that has been passed by the congress. that's literally what h