he'll be followed by randy barnett, the professor of legal theory at the georgetown university law center where he teaches constitutional law and contracts. randy famously argued the last big case relevant to our discussions here, gonzalez versus raich in 2004. and he's also been called by "the new york times" the intellectual godfather of the lawsuits against the individual mandate and obamacare more broadly. and last but not least, we have elizabeth wydra, who is the chief counsel of the constitutional accountability center, which is a think tank law firm, an action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the constitution's text and history. she frequently participates, as do a lot of us in this business, in amicus briefs before the supreme court, and she's actually, unlike many of us, has argued several big cases in the federal courts of appeal. so without further ado, i'll turn it over the michael. and then we'll hear from some lawyers and we'll keep going. >> thank you, ilya, and thank you, roger, for putting this together, and thank you for reading that quote from

i have been really busy with all this stuff and i'm happy that randy barnett is here, i am practically making a living on speaking appearances and writing opportunities that he turns down. so thank you, randy, for being even busier than i am. we'll begin with michael cannon, who is cato's director of health policy studies. one thing i learned for the first time about michael in reading his bio, he was cited by the washington post as an influential health care wonk at the cato institute. i'll look to learn even more. i use michael as an excuse when i get tough questions in public speaking, i say i'm a simple constitutional lawyer, you want to know about this stuff, talk to michael. he will be followed by randy barnett, the professor of legal theory at georgetown law center, where he teaches constitutional law and contracts. randy famously argued the last big case relevant to our discussions here, gonzalez versus raich in 2004 and been called by the new york times the intellectual godfather of the lawsuits against the individual mandate and obamacare misdemeanmore broadly. we have elizab

walter dellinger, randy barnett, thank you. online we have extensive coverage of the health care reform law and you can listen to the audio of today's argument or read the transcript. we have interviews with people who traveled to washington to voice their opinions-- pro and con-- on the law. plus, a post from susan dentzer on what happens if the individual mandate is struck down or takes effect and marcia coyle's primer for tomorrow's session will be posted in the morning. that's all at www.newshour.pbs.org. >> ifill: now to syria >> ifill: now, to syria. the united nations estimates today that the death toll has reached 9,000 as the government there continues to uproot opposition forces. today president bashar assad toured the city of homs, the scene of some of the worst fighting. john ray of independent television news reports. >> reporter: the scene was carefully crafted for state television. among the crowd a weeping man to greet president assad this was the long-time rebel stronghold of be be am. government forces have re

solicitor general walter dellinger and georgetown law professor randy barnett. >> ifill: then, judy woodruff updates the violence in syria amid reports of a possible peace plan, even as the death toll continues to rise. >> brown: we have the story of an illinois company that's retraining its workers to meet the demands of highly skilled manufacturing jobs. >> you've got aging now, a disinterested younger generation and then you've got what's left in the middle and that's not enough to fill the need. >> ifill: and ray suarez talks to author eric klinenberg about the growing number of americans who are content to live alone. >> they're not going to settle with living the wrong person in the way they might have 50 years ago. >> brown: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. anby the alfd p.loan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and fo

cato, my law school classmate richard epstein, for example, have been very explicit about that, randy barnett, probably roger have been very explicit about that. it's very honorable to have the view the law ought to be changed in a major way. if that weren't true, we would never have had brown versus the board of education. the fact is, it is a radical change in what the law is. >> simon, you seem to be saying that it is not coercive for congress to say to a state that we're going to give back the money that we have extracted from your taxpayers if you will do this, that or the other thing. it seems to me that is the number of tnub of the matter. that strikes me as not very far removed from the mugger who says your money or your life. and the state says, look, we would prefer to keep the money ourselves in our state and do it our own way rather than to send it to you, the feds, and then have you turn around and give it back to us with strings attached. >> can i respond to that? >> surely. i don't know that there is a response. >> i'm glad you made that remarkable point in just the form you di

a few months later, georgetown law professor randy barnett wrote a legal memo for a conservative thinkean of harvard law school would later call barnett the mastermind behind the legal challenge to the mandate. in that memo, barnett argued that congress can only regulate those who choose to engage in economic activity but the individual mandate regulates someone's decision to not buy health insurance. many constitutional scholars mocked the idea but over time conservatives have embraced it. >> you've got the individual mandate in here, which i think is unwise. i too believe is unconstitutional. >> for the first time in the 225-year history of the country, the federal government is telling you that you have to buy something. >> american people are telling us that the individual mandates, the requirements to buy insurance are something that they want us to scrap and start over on. >> the mandate itself was a republican idea starting way back in the mid '90s. after a series of conflicting decisions from various courts around the country in georgia, virginia, california among others in fal

i want to go back to the debate elizabeth wydra and randy barnett were having about what is left for the state. save this law is determined to be constitutional. is there any activity i could do in my everyday life that could only be regulated by the states and could not be pre-empted by the federal government if this law is determined to be controversial? >> any activity that does not have an effect on interstate commerce. was important to note in these hypotheticals, broccoli, you have to say what is the enumerated power congress is using, how in the world is that regulation necessary and proper to achieving that enumerated power and third do you need to pile inference upon inference to see the connection between conduct being regulated and the enumerated powers. does that, even all of those of why? does it conflict with any other provision of the constitution. i want to get back to what randy said about the comstock decision. the end of that opinion there are narrowing factors on the court's endorsement of necessary and proper clause that is otherwise sweeping power. those narrowi

of independent business and a plaintiff in this case against the healthcare law and professor randy barnett is legal counsel for the federation. you have the weather of and the lawyer here challenging this law. and this is a huge week for you next week, a huge week for you as you try to get this law struck down. let me start with you, karen. in terms our viewers can understand, why do you think this law will be so harmful to businesses? >> right, well it's two fold. first of all we've got congress for the first time selling small business owners and indeed all americans across this country, you must go and buy this product and take your precious hard earned dollars, especially for small business owners, you can't put that into your business, no-no you need to buy this health insurance policy that you may or may not need or want. megyn: randy, the government has said it can do this because if they don't force karen to do that then her employees are good to get sick, go to the emergency room and those of us who are covered are going to have to pay for them any way. >> if that's what this law

first on my list is randy barnett, professor of legal theory at the georgetown university law center. in his riding is widely published and read. he has written over 100 articles and reviews, nine books, opinion pieces in publications like the wall street journal, and is a frequent contributor. he was awarded a guggenheim fellowship in constitutional studies in 2008. that was not his greatest accomplishment in 2008. in that year, he also portrayed an assistant prosecutor in the film "inalienable." according to imdb, it is a legal science-fiction thriller. he is an act of constitutional advocate on the issues we will be debating today. in 2004, he argued the medical marijuana case before the supreme court. he is now one of the lawyers representing the national federation of independent business in their challenge to the affordable care act. our other debater is equally renowned. pamela karlan is a professor of public interest law at stanford law school. she also code directs the supreme court litigation clinic. she has published numerous articles, books, and textbooks including a leadi