in fact, raisch represents the outer limits, and raisch is clearly in the plaintiff's favor. first you need a comprehensive steam. in this particular case, it was taken way beyond raisch as well as wicker. >> as far as being part of a comprehensive regulation. >> i think what we have -- pardon? >> you aren't saying there is a comprehensive statute? >> i don't dispute this is a comprehensive statute. we are not challenging the entire statute, we are challenging the individual mandate. >> in lopez was the fact that there was not a comprehensive regulation there. those were totally intrastate activities. >> but morrisson and lopez required economic activity. they also required relatedness -- >> as i read those cases, and i have read them, those were factors that the court said should be looked to. so we have massive hearings. we need that. there is no question about it. >> we had a lot of history in the morrisson case. >> in lopez it started out -- >> that's correct. >> that's what supreme court cases have said. if you go back to cases 18 and 19, which is the majority opinion, i

and as a second example of the same usage by congress, the statute that was before the court in raisch, section 801 of title 21, the court said that, the regulation of intrastate drug activity, drug traffic, was essential to the regulation of interstate drug activity. again, it is simply not conceivable that congress was saying one is so indispensable to the other, the way the united states uses the term here. so indispensable, that if we can't regulate the intrastate traffic, we don't want to regulate the interstate traffic either. the whole law, criminalizing drug traffic would fall. so i think once you look at the finding for what i believe it says, which is, we believe this is useful part of our regulatory scheme, which congress would think in its own approach would be sufficient -- >> counsel, the problem i have is that you're ignoring the congressional findings and all of the evidence congress had before it, that community ratings and guaranteed issuance would be a death spiral. i think that was the word that was used, without minimum coverage. those are all of the materials that

premiums, not just when they get sick if they get sick, but right now, in the aggregate, and wickard and raisch tell us we should look at the aggregate and the aggregate of all these uninsured people are increasing the normal family premium, congress says, by $1,000 a year. those people are in commerce. they're making decisions that are affecting the price that everybody pays for this service. >> ms. kagan, with all due respect, i don't think that's a limiting principle. my unwillingness to buy an electric car is forcing up the price of an lech drik car. if more demanded an electric car -- >> this is very different, mr. clement and it's different because of the nature of the let care service that you are entitled to health care when you go an emergency room, when you go to a doctor, even if you can't pay for it. so the difference between your hypotheticals and the real case is the problem of uncompensated care. >> well, justice kagan, if i don't buy a car and somebody goes on welfare, i'm going to pay for that, also. there's a real disconnect between the focus on what makes this different and t

so the other case that will come into play is gonzalez verses raisch. >> now that you mention it.his is how prepared we are. we didn't know you were going to bring it up. in 2005 the federal government the court said they ruled 6-3 the federal government destroy home grown marijuana in california that allowed medicinal marijuana because it affected the interstate mar get. -- market. >> home grown marijuana -- >> it was a woman who was sick said she was using it. >> it will effect interstate commerce. you see how broadly it goes. sol leet taw and kennedy concurred with that opinion. this is brought up ten times in the government's brief because they are trying to skov scalia on this. >> on the other hand, i see you wriggling in your chair. make the other side. >> you don't have to over turn these cases to hold for the plaintiffs. these cases are different. the difference in this case as britt suggested is the government is saying, we are going to compel you to participate in commerce in order to regulate you. it's not a case of growing wheat. it's a case of you must buy this certai

you heard the raisch case and discussion and edebates. what is that case all about?e is the quick explanation. it was a 2005 supreme court case that dealt with home grown medical marijuana in california where it is legal under state law, still a violation of federal law. justice scalia and four of his colleagues ruled the federal government did have a legitimate interest in regulateing that marijuana growth. he wrote that his understanding of the necessary and proper clause in the commerce clause persuaded him it was legitimate for the federal government to regulate that particular activity. in its brief in the healthcare case the government has cited justice scalia's words from the raich opinion and supporters believe it could be one of their most powerful arguments in persuading one of the so call conservative members of the court. opponents argue that the raich case is distinguishable from the healthcare case and predict it won't sway justice scally. we'll see. starting come we will have around the clock coverage of the arguments. minute they break i will held out