wait outside of government hospitals hoping to get the treatment they need according to the supreme court indians below the poverty line are supposed to get access to free health care and government hospitals but that leaves many indians who are technically above the poverty line but still extremely poor with no affordable health care. there is a severe shortage of doctors in india with some study indicating that there could be as few as point six doctors for every thousand people in india compared to two point six million ited states that means doctors the private hospitals can charge a premium for their services. on the other side of delhi the sidewalks outside his private hospital are clear of wine when they. arise recovering from his operation and pay thirty dollars a day for a bed in this private hospital he says the extra cost is worth it it's easier to get treated here and also i get the medicine on time many say the indian government is actually widening the gap between rich and poor in there at philippi to access health care by offering tax incentives and subsidized plan to private hospi

supreme court's decision in holmes versus alexander. other books have a respect to minority businesses, fair housing and native american indian policy. so my conclusion here is trite but i think true, much has been done in the area of civil rights and much needs to still be done. thank you. [ applause ] >> well it's my pleasure to be here today at this wonderful conference to talk about my contribution to the nixon volume which is on the environment, and environmental policy, and in doing so i was able to draw upon the literature of environmental history which is both fascinating and a burgeoning field which is good news for me, not such good news for mel, because i kept submitting revised and expanded bibliographies, but i think he forgave me and it's particularly good the literature of late in dealing with environmental policy history. in the most nixon specific of this literature has to be jay brooks flippins' book called "nixon and the environment" by far the most comprehensive of the president and the policy. the essay was called "nixon and the environment" so in the effort to be utterly derivative i needed to figure out somethi

indian economies and create jobs without spending a time. the congress can fix the problem it's created by the supreme court decision and offer certainty for transaction that is are critical to the nick future. the department of the interior is already acting to streamline, lease approval for renewable energy development and we urge congress to expand leasing reform and pass an indian energy self-determination law. congress can also act on public safety legislation that will attract businesses to our communities. we urge the passage of amendments to the stafford act that are supported by fema and would remove burdens have states and tribes in times of critical emergencies when lives are on the line. native women are the protectors of our culture, our family and future. we call on the senate to pass the violence against women act reauthorization, both of which would take critical steps to address the horrific rates of violence being perpetrated against our women. the native class act offers a chance to provide the kind of education our young people need to succeed today and build economies indian country needs for tomorrow. our young people must not be

indian tribes. brit, does it fall within or without the? >> it is true that the supreme court granted ongress wide latitude to regulate that are interstate commerce. famously the court ruled it was constitutional to penalize someone from growing certain amount of wheat on his land. the question it seems to me is that limits of congress' power to legislate and regulate under the commerce clause. never before to my knowledge has congress ever basically commanded that people enter into a contractial regulation. it has to be voluntarily. and i don't know what the court will do. i am atonished to say it is a slam dunk. i don't think it is. and i don't think it would have set aside days of arguments. it will be approached as a novel question and if the court permits it, i don't know. >> chris: to give a sense of how broadly the court has inerperted the clause of the constitution we'll lookk at what brit just mentioned. the case of wickard v philburn. under the quota for wheat, the government could order him to destroy express groups even if it was grown for for private use. that is

indian tribes. brit, does it fall within or outside the commerce clause? >> well, it is certainly true that the supreme courtas granted congress wide latitude under the commerce clause to regulate things that not only are in interstate commerce but may affect interstate commerce. famously, the court has ruled it was constitutional to prevent someone from growing or penalize someone from growing a certain amount of wheat on his land. the question here, though, seems to me is whether there are limits and the court has certainly said there are limits to congress' power to legislate and regulate never before has congress ever basically commanded that people enter into a contractual relationship of one kind and there is one argument that says to do that makes is a mandatory contract which disinvolves any contract. it has to be voluntariry. i don't know what the government is going to do. i'm astonished to read the commentators saying it is a slam dunk one way or another. i don't think it is. i don't think they would set aside days of argument if it were. it will be approached as a novel question. >> chris: i want

indian tribes. britt, what are your thoughts? does it fall within or outside the commerce? >> it is certainly true the supreme courtranted wide latitude to regulate things that not only are in interstate commerce but may effect interstate commerce. famously the court ruled it is constitutional to prevent someone from growing or penalize someone growing a certain amount a week on his land. the question is whether there are limits. the court has said there are limits to congress' power to legislate and regulate under the commerce clause. never before to my knowledge has congress ever basically cut -- commanded that people undenter o a relationship of some kind. there's one argument to do that makes it a mandatory contract that dissolves any contract. i don't know what the court is going to do. i don't think anybody does. i am astonished to hear commentators saying it's a slam dunk one way or the other. i think it will be approached as a novel question. this goes very far in whether the court will permit it i don't know. >> i want to pick up on that. give us a sense of how praudly the constitution -- or rather the cou

indian tribes. the 2012 supreme court must determine whether the founders had any intention of mandating the behavior of private enterprises and american citizens. to me, the answer is obvious, absolutely not. our nation was founded on the declaration of independence, freedom of choice and a free market are at the core of our nation's soul. a governmental mandate for the behavior of individuals and private enterprises is against what our founders intended. the process perfect of having an unelected panel of bureaucrats determining decisions about our individual health is perhaps the most personal and intimate intrusion into our lives. this concept is absolutely absurd and dangerous law which surely ranks with the grievances laid down 236 years ago in the declaration of independence. grievances he has forbidden governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance unless suspended in his openings operation and when suspended he is neglected to attend to them. he has elected officers and sent officers to harris our people and eat out their substance and subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our

indian tribes steps on a lizard when they're trying to line up a bald eagle. that's the controversy you're avoiding, young man! >> probably go to the supreme courtttle tilted in one or the other direction. doesn't seem to totally add up. but we're interested in what you think about that. >> totally add up? it's outrageous. >> at foxnews.com. >> i'm being sarcastic, brian, i'm being sarcastic. coming up on our show, louisiana governor bobby jindal says he knows how to lower gas prices and he knows why the president won't do it calling it irrational. just when she thought everything would go back to normal, lindsay lohan has another run-in with the law for hitting a person with her car. wake up! that's good morning, veggie style. hmmm. for half the calories plus veggie nutrition. could've had a v8. [ male announcer ] every day, thousands of people are choosing advil. my name is lacey calvert and i'm a yoga instructor. if i have any soreness, i'm not going to be able to do my job. but once i take advil, i'm able to finish out strong. it really works! [ laughs ] [ male announcer ] make the switch. take action. take advil. ♪ oh, my maltipoo's depress

indian tribes. if the interstate clause, it would not make these completely superfluous -- it would make these completely superfluous and the same could be said for the others. i fully recognize the supreme courtre 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 health insurance is a special case