superfluous goods that people end up giving away to one another. there is really not a lot of crime. there is too much to do. [laughter] >> could you talk more about that factor, that there is an abundance of good, which is interesting, being in the desert. the economic system that is up there. we talked a long time ago for a "for a magazine" story. one of the things that you said is that commerce, in an of itself, is not the enemy. it is the backbone of civilization. >> to be against commerce is to be against your clothing. who would be against commerce? we just said we are living in a world that has been overly come modified. where everything has been turned into a commodity value. people do not have the identities. we are world full of brands and no identity. you can read your entire life -- you can do your business and go about in the world using your credit card and never really look anyone in the eye. a world in which things have been comodified, things that should never have been. you cannot put a price on love. you cannot put a price on thi

and not one of them knew and they all agreed it was superfluous. we have troops in 100, 150 countries, some huge number, we're really out there in a number of places we don't need to be and you don't have to go as far as ron paul to realize there is -- we have extended i think the military far beyond what we need for basic national security and probably for our own good. with the other candidates, newt is the one i know best. i've known newt fairly well for 30 years. back when he first set up the conservative opportunity society in the middle 1980s, he kept getting various people to coordinate it and for some number of months, i was selected as a coordinator. the reason none of us last is because we were supposed to manage newt and what we had, this was before newt was famous and he was just sort of a loud back venture and we had a little group and again, none of these guys were well known at this point. jon kyl, dick army, tom delay, i was sort of the resident economist among the lot. before our wednesday luncheon meetings, my assistant would call

which has affected interstate commerce, these other two powers would be completely unnecessary and superfluous, and same can be said for many of the other 17 enumerated powers that congress is given under article one. i fully recognize that over the last 60-70 years, the supreme court has expanded its interpretation of the congress power well beyond its text and original meaning. i think some of these presidents are badly misguided, but even the most extreme of them do not go far enough to justify the individual mandate. i think almost everyone would agree that the courts brought his commerce clause president so far is the 2005 case of gonzales versus race with the court stated the commerce clause allowed congress to forbid the position and growth of medical marijuana even in a case without mayor juan had never crossed state lines and never been sold in any market. i think race is a misguided decision by does not go far enough to justify this mandate. the marijuana can be forbidden because possession and growth of marijuana was the quote economic activity. they define economic activity very br

so i don't think those particular powers would be rendered superfluous by a requirement congress could tell you to buy something that's being sold. >> stanford law school, just had a question touching on professor karlan. you mentioned obamacare/romney care and mr. barnett mentioned the police power of the states versus the federal government. i'm wondering on the first hand, is there anything in the constitution that would protect us of the state's assertion of power and is it sort of assumed people could move states or what are the sort of benefits or drawback that states regulate health care in that way versus the federal government? >> you could make an argument on the state's power along the line's pam said but it's not an existing doctrine that would succeed. this is based on the existing doctrine, not the original meaning of the constitution which shows the mandate is not constitutional and base on existing doctrine and states under existing law do have this power. ron one of the reasons states historically have a broader power under congress under the original meaning of the co

they all agreed it was superfluous. we do not need to troops and 150 numbers. we are in places we do not need to be. you do not have to go so far as ron paul to realize we have extended the military far beyond what we need for basic national security and probably for our own good. with the other candidates, newt is the one i know best. i have known him for 30 years. back when he first served in the getting various people. i was selected as a coordinator. we did not last because we're supposed to manage newt. [laughter] this was before he was famous. we had the little group and none of these guys were well known. it was jon kyl and tom delay. before our wednesday meetings, my assistant would get everybody's agenda items of who wanted to bring up what. then knew it would walking in with 12 items that were not on the agenda, insisting he go first. nine of them were crazy idea and one was brilliant. most people do not have a brilliant idea in a lifetime, let alone one week. but there was also john. he had trouble -- also junk. he had trouble differentiating those.

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 a benefit or drawbacks of having states regulate health care in that way versus federal government? >> i think it is an important question. i think there ought to b

they all agreed it was superfluous. we do not need to troops and 150 numbers. we are in places we do not need to be. you do not have to go so far as ron paul to realize we have extended the military far beyond what we need for basic national security and probably for our own good. with the other candidates, newt is the one i know best. i have known him for 30 years. back when he first served in the getting various people. i was selected as a coordinator. we did not last because we're supposed to manage newt. [laughter] this was before he was famous. we had the little group and none of these guys were well known. it was jon kyl and tom delay. before our wednesday meetings, my assistant would get everybody's agenda items of who wanted to bring up what. then knew it would walking in with 12 items that were not on the agenda, insisting he go first. nine of them were crazy idea and one was brilliant. most people do not have a brilliant idea in a lifetime, let alone one week. but there was also john. he had trouble -- also junk. he had trouble differentiating those.

i do not think those powers would be rendered superfluous. >> thank you. i had a question sort of touching, you mentioned, you mentioned obamacare and romneycare, i was wondering, is there anything in the constitution that would protect us against the state's assertion of power? or is it assumed that people could move states? what a benefit or drawbacks of having states regulate health care in that way versus federal government? >> i think it is an important question. i think there ought to be a due process clause objection that you could make along the lines that pam said. i do not think it would succeed. this is all based on existing documents. it is not based on the original constitution. i think it shows the mandate is constitutional. i think states do have this power. one of the reason states do have a broader palette than congress, -- a broader powers than congress is that when any state exercises the broader powers there is a competition between them and other states, and people who do not like it can move to another state without giving up their am

superfluous and the same could be said for the others.ts original meaning. some of these are badly misguided, but even the most extreme do not go far enough to justify the individual mandate. i think almost everyone would agree that the broadest costs so far, where they would bid the growth of medical marijuana, even in the case where it had never crossed state lines. i think that is a misguided decision, but even that does not go far enough to justify this mandate. it says the possession and growth of marijuana was a economic activity, and it defined in broadly as the and consumption of a commodity. not having health insurance, it is not a production of a commodity, consumption or distribution, so even that does not go far enough to get the government where it needs to go in this particular case. it turns out the only possible way to uphold the mandate is if congress held the power to impose virtually any mandates that has an economic effect, which is true of pretty much anything congress can compel us to do, so the government has argued

there are parts of asia where people would not take the super note he kisses her superfluous counterfeit. there will worried about a decade ago in the treasury department that this would actually undermine the credibility. it has been the u.s. and other countries have been successful and cash handling of criminal syndicates and enroll in the super note and have been much better at attack demand. we had a meeting with the north koreans in 2006 we told them he's got to step to the mess and the north koreans denied they were concentrating the super note, but they offered to help you decide if you give us your best counterfeit currency detection technology, we will use it to find whoever's doing this. so it was an apparently cynical move because this is part of their syndicate empire, which brings and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars in cash. nobody knows for sure. of these tens of millions. and that regime like north korea is a lot of money used to keep the elite royal to pay for chemicals, precursors and talk knowledge he needed to keep working on a nuclear program. defeat the peop

were given the congress the power to regulate these and the other would become unnecessary and superfluous. over the last 60-70 years, the supreme court has expanded its interpretation of the commerce power well beyond its text and original meaning. some of these precedents or badly misguided but even the most extreme do not go enough to justify the individual mandate. the broadest clause so far is the 2005 case of goods dollars vs -- the court stated that the commerce clause allowed for the government to be able to forbid the growth of marijuana even if it had never been crossing state lines or sold in any markets. this is not justified demanded. the marijuana could be forbidden because the possession and growth was economic activity. they defined economic activity very broadly as the production, consumption, or distribution of a commodity. if you look at this case, obviously not having health insurance, it is in consumption of a commodity, it is not the distribution of a commodity. even this case does not go far enough to get the government where it is to go in this particular case. it t

some may wonder if this will render -- superfluous. i think that would be extremely unfortunate.hese instruments are designed to achieve different goals and they will have different national participants. many will participate in some but not all. given that the register has involved political commitments while others will have legal commitments for transfers as bartepart of a broader commitme. by expect this to far outstrip the -- i expect that this will far outstrip the att, the issue it should be able to fulfill its objective while promoting transparency in conventional arms transfers. we need to promote common international standards for the international transfer of conventional arms. both instruments have an important role to play in conventional arms. thank you. >> thank you very much. i would like to open up to the audience. i will take the prerogative of the chair and asked for a little bit of background. one of the questions that i had is how to the current efforts to try to control conventional weapons relate to efforts to the talks? i wonder if anyone can talk a littl