mr. kneedler says quite correctly, tells the court don't look at budgetary implications. the problem, once it's common ground the individual mandate is in the statute at least in part to make community rating and guaranteed issue affordable. that really is all you have to identify. that establishes the essential link that it's there to pay for. you don't have to figure out exactly how much that is and which box. i mean, clearly it's a substantial part of it, because what they were trying to do is to help individuals and put them into the risk pool and this is quoting their finding which is in order that the people in the market, which will lower premiums. so that's what their intent was. you don't have to get to the final number. you know that's what was going on here. that's the reason alone to sever it. the government, mr. kneedler also says, there's an easy dividing line between what that want to keep and dish out. the problem with that, you read their brief and might think, oh, there's a guaranteed issue in a community rating provision subtitle in the bill. there's no

mr. kneedler made is that the price won't be affordable. because the -- he spoke of the adverse election problem. that so fewer people in the insurance company they're going to have to raise the premiums. so it's nice that congress made it possible for more people to be covered bus the reality is they won't because they won't be able to afford the premium. >> well, justice ginsburg, let me say two things about that. first of all when we talk about

mr. kneedler. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- there should be no occasion for the court in this case to consider issues of severability, because as we argue, the -- the minimum coverage provision is fully consistent with article i of the constitution. but if the court were to conclude otherwise, it should reject petitioners' sweeping proposition that the entire act must fall if this one provision is held unconstitutional. as an initial matter, we believe the court should not even consider that question. the vast majority of the provisions of this act do not even apply to the petitioners, but instead apply to millions of citizens and businesses who are not before the court -- >> how does your proposal actually work? your idea is that, well, they can take care of it themselves later. i mean, do you contemplate them bringing litigation and saying -- i guess the insurers would be the most obvious ones - without -- without the mandate, the whole thing falls apart, and we're going to bear a

mr. kneedler. mr. farr? >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court -- at the outset, i would just like to say, i think that the government's position in this case that the community-rating and guaranteed-issue provisions ought to be struck down is an example of the best driving out the good, because, even without the minimum coverage provision, those two provisions, guaranteed-issue and community- rating, will still open insurance markets to millions of people that were excluded under the prior system, and for millions of people will lower prices, which were raised high under the old system because of their poor health. so even though the system is not going to work precisely as congress wanted, it would certainly serve central goals that congress had of expanding coverage for people who were unable to get coverage or unable to get it at affordable prices. so when the government - >> one of the points that mr. kneedler made is that the price won't be affordable because -- he spoke of the adverse selection pro

mr. edwin kneedler. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. no occasion for the court in this case to consider issues of several ability because, as we argue, that minimum coverage provision is fully consistent with article one of the constitution. but if the court would conclude otherwise, it should reject petitioner's sweeping proposition that the entire act thus fox, this one provision is held unconstitutional. as an initial matter we believe the courts should not even consider that question. the vast majority of the provisions of this act to not even apply to the petitioners, but, instead, apply to millions of citizens and businesses who are not before the court. >> how does your proposal actually work? your idea is that where they can take care of it themselves letter. contemplate them bringing litigation and saying the answers to be the most obvious ones without the mandate of everything falling apart. the rest of the law should be stored data that is all other line of mitigation. >> the continuing validity of any provision would arise i

mr. kneedler about what procedure, or process, would be anticipated for people who be affected by the change in the law, and the change in the economic consequences. do you have a view on how that could be played out? it does seem to me that if we accept your position, something, there has to be a broad range of consequences, whether it's additional legislation, additional litigation. any thoughts on how that's going to play out? >> well, if the court adopts the position that i'm advocating, mr. chief justice, i think what would lap would happen is that the court would say, the minimum court, by hypothesis is unconstitutional and the fact of that being unconstitutional does not mean the invalidation of any other provisions. so under the position i'm advocating, there would no longer be challenges to the remaining part of the act. >> but if the challenge is what we're questioned today, whether if you're an insurance company and you don't believe that you can -- can give the coverage in the way congress mandated it, without the individual mandate, what type of action do you bring? >> if the co

mr. kneedler, mr. carvin, mr. katsas, and in particular, of course, mr. long and mr. farr. the case is submitted. >> the supreme court wrapped up three days of oral arguments yesterday. this week, they focused on four primary questions -- first, if the law includes a tax, does the court had jurisdiction to decide the case before the law takes effect? secondly, is the individual mandate part of the statute constitutional? and, if not, can the rest of the law survive? finally, is above law's expansion of medicaid coverage and intrusion on state, which is the case we just heard. listen to all four arguments on line and find out more about the health law. go to c-span.org/healthcare. >> live sunday on in depth, or founding fathers, civility, and conservative politics with your questions for author and national review senior editor. his 11 books include "right time, right place," "america's first dynasty," and his latest and james madison. he will take your phone calls, e-mails, and sweets -- on c- span2's book tv. starting sunday, see the winners in this year's c-span studentca

mr. kneedler, that would be a revolution in our severability law, wouldn't it? suggested we're going to say, look, this legislation was a brokered compromise and we're going to try to figure out exactly what would have happened in the complex parliamentary shenanigans that go on across the street and figure out whether they would have made a difference. instead, we look at the text that's actually given us. for some people we look only at the text. should be easy for justice scalia's clerks. >> she just said complex parliamentary shenanigans that go on across the skretreet? >> very interesting. we'll keep you posted. >>> the shooting of trayvon martin has captured the attention of people all across the nation including celebrities, but a move by film director spike lee reportedly has one florida group living in fear. one florida couple i should say living in fear. according to "the hollywood reporter" lee wrongly retweeted the address of the couple as george zimmerman's. nischelle turner live in los angeles with the detail. okay. so what happened? >> reporter: w

mr. kneedler, mr. carvin, mr. katsas, and in particular, of course, mr. long and mr. farr. the case is submitted. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] thehe supreme court ar argument. later, whether the rest of the law can stay intact if the mandate is found unconstitutional. the supreme court could announce its ruling by late june or early july and just a reminder, you can watch the health-care oral arguments any time at our web site, c-span.org. >> this week, a look at cyber- security, privacy, and spectrum issues before the house with representative greg walden of oregon. he chairs the energy and commerce subcommittee on communications and technology. >> this week, joining us is representative greg walden. he serves as chairman of the commerce subcommittee on communications and technology. we appreciate you being on the program. >> thank you. >> if we could start with an issue that it -- is working its way through congress. that is cyber security. it was fast track in the senate and has helped he