for the commander in chief to attend congress. but every monday night he, robert morris, the financier, as he was called, equivalent of our secretary of the treasury, governor morris, no relation to robert but an important figure in the congress, alexander hamilton, james madison, and perhaps a few others, met for dinner. it was at these differents that these men discussed what happened in the congress that day, usually very little. they discussed the fabct that te nation was bankrupt, congress was paralyzed, and the army had not been paid. what to do? what to do? these men formed the core of the kind of shifting political alliance in the congress of men who were nationalists. these were men who saw america as a great nation but only if it had a more powerful, central government. that of course was not the general sentiment in the congress itself. the congress was very much mindful of states' rights, parochial and particular. as the months war on through the winter, washington and martha enjoyed themselves but virtually nothing got

and if congress doesn't want the provisions that are not affected to stand, congress can take care of it. is a question of, should the courts say we are going to wreck the whole thing or should the court leave it to congress? >> we think the congress should leave it to congress for two reasons. one is what is the point i'm making now about justice ability or whether the court can properly consider it at all in the second we think only a few provisions are severable. >> before you -- mr. kneedler i would like your answer to justice breyer's question. i think you are interested. >> we believe in that case the tax provision should not be struck down. in the first place the anti-injunction act would be strange to allow a tax to be struck down on the basis of severability analysis. severability arises in a case only when it's necessary to consider what relief the party before the court should get. >> because there was a non-severability provision in this act, if one provision were to be held unconstitutional than every si

>> the answer to that is yes. congress is acting on the insurance market as opposed to the health-care market. that was an artificial distinction. these are two integrally related markets which is why i started to my market -- in line >> isn't it a fact that health insurance is most regulated by states? >> it is by states and federal and the like. >> insurance can be regulated under the commerce clause. there has not been much of that position except for these relatively new statutes. >> for example, in 1954. >> that was back in the 1800's. >> absolutely. the health-care market is something that improves in the later half of the 20s century. >> there are no 1800 -- >> it with respect to health care. -- or respect to congress health care or health insurance. >> congress has been involved in health care since the start. >> start of what? >> there are rules that were in place about the government's role. congress is not regulating health insurance as an end, it is regulating it as a means. the end is more affordable health ca

that is why the findings are in the act at all. congress wanted to indicate to the court knowing that the minimum coverage provision was going to be challenged, wanted to indicate to the court the basis on which it believed it had the power under the commerce clause to enact this law. why does that make a difference with respect to finding i which is the one the government is relying on in particular the last sentence which says this environment essential to creating effective health insurance markets in which guaranteed issue and pre-existing illnesses can be covered. the reason is because the word essential in the commerce clause context doesn't have the cloak kweel meaning. in the commerce clause context, essential effectively means useful. so that when one says, in lopez, when the court says, section 922q is not an essential part of the larger regulatory scheme of economic activity, it goes on to say, in which the regulatory scheme would be undercut if we didn't have this provision. well if that's all congress means, i agree with that.

the long congress actually has? >> that's right, but the problem is straight from the title. we have two comp compliment ary purposes. you can't say it's consistent with congress' intent because congress had a balanced intent. you can't look at another provision and say this promotes patient protection without asking if it's affordable. seems to me if you ask what is going to promote congress' purpose, that's an inquiry you can't carry out. >> no. with respect, i disagree, because i think it's evident that congress' purpose was to expand access to affordable care. it did it in discreet ways. it did it by the penalty on employers that don't offer suitable care. it did it by offering tax credits to small employers. it did it by offering tax credits to purchasers. all of those are for a variety of waifs to continue to further congress' goal and most of all, medicaid which sun related to the private insurance market altogether and in adopting those other provisions governing employers and whatnot, congress built on its p

the library of congress was a great resource. i tried to go to places like the hebron lutheran church just to see what it would have been like when madison and monroe sat out there after a church service and debated the constitution in the snow for hours. i got to spend a lot of time in virginia working on this book because i was working on an election there and it was wonderful to be able to retrace the steps and work on an election in what used to be the fifth congressional district in virginia work to support candidates there in the footsteps of madison and monroe. so those are the two principal places and the sources i looked for for this research. any other questions? >> why do you think this race was so overlooked by other historians? >> that's such a great question and i get it a lot and the problem is, what immediately jumped out to me was being historically significant. if i have to make excuses that allowed me to make the book, thank you for not appreciating the significance of this race or writing about things you thoug

so we know the context that congress is talking about. it is more or less quoting from the court's commerce clause statement, but if one looks at the very preceding finding, which is finding h, which is on 42 over on to 43, congress at that point also uses the word essential in the second sentence. it says, this requirement, and again we're talking about the minimum coverage provision, is an essential part of the-of this larger regulation of the economic activity, by the way, an exact quote from lopez. in which the absolute requirement would undercut federal legislation, also an exact quote from lopez, but what it's referring to is essential, an essential part of orissa, the national health service act, and the affordable care. it can't possibly be even the plaintiffs haven't argued that those acts would all fall in their entirety if you took out the minimum coverage provision. 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

the appendix. congress found that having the individual mandate is essential to the operation of guaranteed issue and community rating. >> that's all it said it was essential to. i mean, i'm looking at it. the exchanges, the state exchanges are information gathering facilities that tell insurerers what the various policies actually mean. and that has proven to be a cost saver in many of the state who is have tried it. so why should we be striking down a cost saver? and if what your argument is was that congress was concerned about costs rising. or we assume they wouldn't have passed the information. >> i would think you sort of have to take the bitter with the sweet. if congress is trying to look at congress's goal of providing patient protection but also affordable care, we can't -- in take the things that save money and cut out the things that are going to make premiums more expensive. >> i just want a bottom line is why don't we let congress fix it? >> let me answer the bottom line question. no matter wh

the congress can absolutelinact. there must be limits to the power and scope of the federal governmen government. >> looking at what they call the severability, whether if the court found that the health care mandate could be severed out and still have the law itself intact. let's take a few more minutes of phone calls. we expect to bring you the oral argument from this afternoon's case in just a bit. evelyn is in palo alto, florida, on the independent line. >> hello, to respond initially, first of all, to respond to gentlemen who thought the court was there to deny health care to the citihi that's the issue. the way congress has stur and tt into law is my understanding, not in the constitution of the united states to supply everybody with health care. as justice scalia said, it's really a question of do weerybl? do we feed them as well? that's more basic than hea so my other issue with the whole tocedure is i feel this should way it was done. it was forced through. they didn't mislead us. they lied.us it was not ord

thus the mandate. congress concluded broadening the pool to include healthy individuals with lower cost. maybe congress was wrong about the empirical judgment. i do not know. i am just a law professor. the constitutional question is not whether congress' judgment was correct. it is whether it was rational. the supreme court held two years ago that the constitution addresses the choice of means primarily through the judgment of congress. as the court stated in 1934, if it can be seen the means adopted are calculated to obtain the end, the extent to which they can lead to the end, the closeness between the means and in the are matters for congressional determination alone. there is enough evidence for congress to believe insuring all americans carried adequate insurance is critical to regulating the health care market. we come to the final objection. is there something wrong with making people buy something they do not want? if there is, and there probably is, it is not that the compulsion violates the commerce c

in the congress of the confederation, every state had one vote. the bigger states got to send a bigger delegation, but all that delegation could do was cast one vote at the end of the day. virginia has over 700,000 people, and delaware has less than 50. and the virginians, not surprisingly, didn't understand why someone in delaware had a right to so much more representation. so this is a big problem. the southern states -- not the southern states, the smaller states will not yield on this point, so it's a question of yielding to them in the spirit of accommodation or scrapping the whole enterprise and going back. fortunately, they did agree that the house of representatives would be based on population, and the senate would be based on equal representation among the states. from philadelphia comes the constitution, and i think in history books we tend to bloses over this period -- gloss over this period in history. and it goes straight from the constitutional convention in philadelphia to george washington taking the oath on the balcony of federal

and if one thinks about the difference between the means they say congress should have chosen and the means congress did choose, we with see why it was more imminent for congress to choose the way it chose. >> i'm not sure which way it cuts, if the congress has ultimate means. the national health service. how does that factor into our analysis? in one sense it can be argued this is what the government is doing and ought to be honest about using the correct power. on the other hand, since the court can do it any way, i'm not sure which way the argument moves? >> let me try to answer that and get back to the question you asked me early per's earlier. i do think one striking feature of the argument here that this is a novel exercise of power is that what congress chose to do was to rely on market mechanisms and efficiencies and a method that has more choice than would the traditional medicare or medicaid-type model. seems a little ironic to suggest that that counts against it, but beyond that, in the sense that it's novel, this provision is novel in the same way, or unprecedented in the

the bank of the message is one. congress created a whole range of economic activity when it created the bank. in more modern times agreed fannie mae and freddie mac. we may wonder about the policy implications of that but it commit all kinds of commerce that didn't exist before and no one would say that was wrong. if we go back to the new deal cases, the famous wiki? no, mr. phil burns we did was going to be kept on his harvard was going to enter commerce. yet the court said it could be regulated. and i don't think that children could have won his case as something force by week and interstate market as the judge said. so i think the activity, inactivity distinction, although further interesting when you drill down into what is the meaning doesn't really have a lot. and i would also step back and say what were the frantically trying to do? it seems to me they were trying to delineate interstate commerce as an area and then say with in that sea or the federal, has the same plenary power that the states do. and since as i said

>> an objective congress, your honor. not the specific -- not with a vote count. >> why put -- why put congress to that false choice? >> well -- >> you only have two choices, congress. you can have the whole bill or you can have -- you can have parts of the bill or no bill at all. why that false choice? >> i think the reason is because severability is by necessity a blunt tool. the court doesn't have, even if it had the inclination, doesn't essentially have the authority to retool the statute -- >> i know. so you -- i would say stay out of politics. that's for congress, not us. >> right. >> but the -- the question here is, you've read all these cases or dozens. have you ever found a severability case where the court ever said -- well, the heart of the thing is gone and therefore we strike down these other provisions that have nothing to do with it which could stand on their feet independently and can be funded separately or don't require money at all. >> i think the accurate answer would be, i am not aware of any modern case that

the situation? >> it does, justice breyer. if congress were to enact laws like that, we -- >> so then -- >> i would defend them on a rational like that. i do think we are advancing a narrower. >> then the question is whether or not there are any limits on the commerce clause. can you identify for us some limits on the commerce clause. >> yes. the rational under the commerce clause would not justify forced purchases of commodities for the purpose of stimulating demand. it would not justify purchases of insurance for the purposes in situations in which insurance doesn't serve as the method of payment. >> why not? if congress says that the interstate commerce is affected isn't according to your view that the end of the analysis. >> no. the -- we think that in a -- when the difference between those situations and this situation is that in those situations, your honor, congress would be moving to create commerce. here congress is regulating existing commerce, economic activity that is already going on. people's participation in the health care

the court's role is determine what congress intended, not necessarily to rewrite the act that congress in effect did. it appears from the act itself that congress did not intend to impose a tax when in imposed in a penalty. this certainly does not apply to the anti-injunction act. i think are several ways this court looking at the act itself, what congress did, demonstrates this is not a tax. >> but in your complaint, do not use the term "tax" that this was an unconstitutional tax? isn't that what the district court said that he sought a declaration that congress lacked authority under the commerce clause to pass the health care reform act and alternatively, a declaration of the penalty provision of the act is an unconstitutional tax? >> that is an alternative argument, your honor. it is not a stand alone. from the beginning we have argued this is not attacks, but a penalty. this mandate was not tell-it was pursuant -- >> something like a requirement you must file a 1099 or not that, a day 10b? is that your belief this is viewed as a penalty, but nine of a criminal nature or taxing-typ

i'll give you three main sources for the authority that congress has to pass the mandate. first, congress express power to regulate interstate commerce among the several states. two, congress' power to pass laws necessary and proper to executing this commerce and other delegated powers. and three, the power to tax and spend for the general welfare. i'm happy to talk about the tax and power more in questions for my comments right now i will focus on the commerce clause and necessary and proper clause. so, applying these constitutional principles to the case of the individual mandate, arguments in support of the mandate boil down to one, that the mandate is a valid exercise of congress commerce clause power because it regulates economic conduct. that is how and when to pay for health care services in the massive interstate health care market. two, even if you think the mandate regulates non-economic conduct, which has been one of the arguments made, it's nonetheless within congress' commerce clause power because the decision not to buy health insurance substantially affects i

and if congress doesn't want the provisions that are not infected to stand, congress can take care of it. it's a question of which side should the court say we're going to wreck the whole thing or should the court leave it to congress? >> we think the court should leave it to congress for two reasons. one is the reason i'm making now about whether the court can properly consider it at all and we think only a few provisions are inseverable. >> before you go i would like your answer to justice breyer's question. >> we believe the tax provision should not be struck down. in the first place the antiinjunction act would bar it change for a tax to be struck down on the basis of severability analysis. it arises where it is necessary to consider what relief a party before the court should get. >> because there was a nonseverability provision in this act, if one provision were to be held unconstitutional then every single -- someone would have to bring a separate lawsuit challenging every single other provision in the act and say one fell and the congress said it's a package that can't be sepa

i want to just say to you, that's a big -- when you agree, you served in the congress. wouldn't you agree that that's -- would be pretty breathtaking to the afternoon american, so would you like to clarify that? >> i do. but i -- you know, i've always served with republican presidents and democratic presidents who always reserve the right to defend this country if necessary. >> before we do this you would seek permission of the international authorities? >> if we're working with an international coalition and we're working with nato, we would want to be able to get appropriate permissions in order to be able to do that. that's something that, you know, all of these countries would want to have some kind of legal basis on which to act. >> what legal basis are you looking for? what entity? >> well, obviously if nato made the decision to go in, that would be one. if we developed an international coalition beyond nato, then obviously some kind of u.n. security resolution. >> a coalition of -- so you're saying nato would give you a legal basis and an a ad hoc coalition of leg

the commerce clause gives congress the power to regulate existing commerce. it does not give congress the far greater power to compel people to enter commerce, to create commerce essentially in the first place. now, congress, when it passed the statute, did make findings about why it thought it could regulate the commerce here. and it justified the mandate as a regulation of the economic decision to forgo the purchase of health insurance. that is a theory without any limiting principles. >> do you accept your -- the general's position that you have conceded that congress could say if you're going to consume health services, you have to pay by way of insurance? >> that's right, justice sotomayor. we say consistent with 220 years of this court's jurs prooud jurisprudence, if you regulate, that's within congress' power. >> what do you do with the impossibility of buying insurance at point of consumption? virtually, you force insurance companies to sell it to you? >> well, justice, i think there's two points to make on that. one is, a lot of the discussion this mo

i will give you three main sources for the authority congress has to pass the mandate. first congress's power, express power to regulate interstate commerce among several states. congress's power to pass laws that are necessary and proper to executing this commerce and other delegated powers and the power to tax and spend for the general welfare. i am happy to talk about that more but i will focus more on the commerce clause and necessary proper clause. applying these constitutional principles to the case of the individual mandate the argument in support of the mandate boil down to the mandate is a valid exercise of the commerce clause power because it regulate economic conduct. that is how and when to pay for health care services in the interstate health care market. even if you think the mandate regulates 9 economic conduct which has been one of the arguments made it is nonetheless within congress's commerce clause power because the decision not to buy health insurance substantially affects interstate commerce and is part of a broader regulation of the health-care indu

the question is always, does congress want half a loaf? is half a loaf better than no loaf? on something like exchanges it seems half a loaf is better than no loaf. the exchanges will do something and won't do everything that congress envisioned. >> i think there are situations where half a loaf is actually worse and i want to address that. before i do that if i can stick with the exchanges i think the question that this court is supposed to ask is not just whether they can limp along and operate independently but whether they operate in the manner that congress intended. that is where the exchanges fold down. the vision of the exchanges is if you got out of this current situation where health insurance is individualized priced and provide community rating then it is easy for people to see this is a silver policy and a bronze policy and a gold policy and pick which insurer provides what i think is the best service based on those comparable provisions. >> you say the question is the manner in which it would have operated. i guess the best example would be booker where we decid

first, we call on the president to send a special message to congress on the importance of the nation to nation relationship. in 1970 president nixon sent a historic message to congress on tribal self-determination. that message launched the self-determination era, the very framework that allowed tribes to prove our capacity as governments. all presidents should do the same. second, we call on the president to fully implement the united nations declaration on the rights of indigenous people. we specifically call for a review of all existing federal law to ensure they are in alignment with the declaration. third, we call for an annual nation-to-nation summit, an on ongoing high-level meeting to institutionalize the current tribal nation summit. a meaningful relationship that must be upheld by all future presidents. we also call on the president to convene regular meetings on specific issues between cabinet secretaries. fourth, elevate native people in the federal government. it's pastime for qualified people to be seated on the bench. the appointment of an adviser on native american af

i think that it is the right time for the administration to work with a congress to establish a plan for moving forward on all of these aspects of rule of law. they all relate to the business environment, investment, corruption, and pntr. i think as i've said before that we should move forward, you know, as part of that consideration, we should move forward with the extension of pntr. i think you said, mr. chairman, that russia has to take its actions. i understand that intelligent observers believe that is likely to happen some time june or july. so i think we should be thinking about what needs to be done in the united states in that same time frame. one on pntr. but two, on cooperation between the congress and administration on how we're going to tackle the other rule of law issues that we see. >> thank you. >> thank you. i just want to file a point for mr. taylor. i tell you that there is few people in our state who are following this and want us to grant the pntr. last weekend i was home, i got my haircut in the barbershop by larissa. she's a russian, and she told me she's been f

are you buying the product or is congress compelling you to buy the product? can't think of a brighter line. and again, if congress has the power to compel you to buy this product, then obviously, they have got the power to provide you -- to compel you to buy any product, because any purchase is going to benefit commerce, and this court is never going to second-guess congress's policy judgments on how important it is this product versus that product. >> do you think they are drawing a line between commerce and everything else that is not commerce is drawing an artificial line, drawing a line between congress and manufacturing? >> the words "inactivity" and "activity" are not in the constitution. the words "commerce" and "noncommerce" are. and again, it's a distinction that comes, justice kagan, directly from the text of the constitution. the framers consciously gave congress the ability to regulate commerce, because that's not a particularly threatening activity that deprives you of individual freedom. if you were required, if you were authorized to require a

he's attending the meetings at the congress. but some observers say the serious developments may have some impact on china's change of leadership. the power struggle over top posts appears to be accelerating. there's a lot of speculation here in beijing. people in china and other countries are closely watching the congress to see what party leaders will do. >> thank you keng, kengo. >> putin is getting his old job back, president of russia. the central election commission says he won the country's election. that mean he's renewed his grip on power for another six years. but opposition groups claim there was electoral fraud. putin denies their accusations. >> election workers have counted most of the ballots. the election commission reports putin has a significant lead with more than 64% of the vote. putin is 59. he served two terms as president between 2000 and 2008. he spent the past four years as prime minister under current president med vef. he managed toim prove his support in latter stages of the campaign by pledging stabil

is the end -- is congress legitimate? u have to show some sort of cost shifting and can to the cost shifting that occurs here. -- akin to the cost shifting that occurs here. >> therefore they could not do it? the cost is borne by the thannal government rather by those who actually have insurance. why is that not enough? >> the power that the congress is asserting is one they were dealing with. money comes out of one person's pocket to pay for another. whether it may qualify might be a bit more a chain of causation. >> some have rejected it as a requirement. >> not at all. i do not think they did. that was about this. >> i realize they said it was there. at the end of the day they rejected its as shown. >> because it was attenuated. they accepted cost shifting. i am having difficulty understanding why this is different. >> it will depend on the findings congress enacted with respect to the end. then we have a question about the means. you have said that congress is entitled to a substantial difference. i do think that the c

if this trend continues, it is going to be a bad few days for the congress party. these elections are seen very much as having a national impact. >> what to do the results for the congress party-led the central government, what does it mean for them ahead of the vote in two years' time? >> basically, the next general area general elections early 2014. for the last nine months, the congress party has been under pressure because of a number of corruption scandals, because of a slowing-down of the economy, inflation has been a massive issue in these elections. some of the smaller parties have been piling on pressure on the congress government because a number of key decisions and programs have been put on hold. if these trends continue and congress does as poorly as expected, we can expect the pressure to continue, some people suggesting that maybe there will be forced to go to early elections, not wait until 2014. india might be looking at a sooner general election. >> there was an effort to revive the congress party presents, but it looks like that did not really mat

meetings at the congress. some openers say the city's developments may have some impact on china leadership. the power struggle appears to be accelerating, and there's a lot of speculation in beijing. people in china and other countries are closely watching the congress to see what party leaders will do. >>> two set themselves on fire in tibet. the government said monday that a 32-year-old mother of four children killed herself in front of a police station. in a separate incident, a 20-year-old student set herself on fire in another province. the u.s. sponsored radio free asia says chinese market vendors threw stones at her burning body. human rights organizations say more than 20 tibetans have committed self i am ladies and gentlemen in the past year. they have protesting restrictions on religious and cultural activities. >>> japan urged china to disclose more information about its defense policy. chief cabinet secretary made the following comments to reporters. >> translator: japan will continue to ask china

chief justice, the position i'm advocating would simply have those -- those pleas go to congress, not in court. now, if one, just to discuss the issue more generally, if that's helpful, i think that if there were situations where the court deferred, let's say for discretionary reasons, say the court said we're not going to take up the question of severability and therefore not resolve it in other situations, it certainly seems to me that enforcement actions, for example, if the time comes in 2014 and somebody applies to an insurance company for a policy, and the insurance company says, well, we're not going to issue a policy. we don't think your risks are ones that we're willing to cover, it seems to me that they could sue the insurance company, and the insurance company could raise as a defense that this provision, the guaranteed issue provision of the statute, is not enforceable, because it was inseverable from the decision, from the provision that the court held unconstitutional in 2012. >> let's consider now, how your approach severing as little as possible thereby increases the d

the third reason why there's a problem with this law is that it's unses. congress had powers that it could have used to accomplish very nearly what it was trying to accomplish here, not the same way. they didn't just have to change the name here or there. they had powerful powers, the ones they always use to subsidize activities that they don't have the power to command, and that is their taxing and spending power. yet they chose not to use those powers. why is that? we know why. it was political. which is exactly the constraint that exists on the taxing power. and that is the president ran for office saying he would not raise taxes on people making less than $200,000, the democ t democrats in the senate, the 16 democrats in the senate were not prepared to support any kind of tax increase. and as a result they didn't use the power that they had for strictly political reasons to accomplish what they say they want to accomplish with this bill. because it's unnecessary, it is simply not a justification that -- in other words, it is not a justification that you have to

about the time that congress passed the anti-injunction act, congress has a broad definition. whether you allow the liability is based in part on your income. it's assessed and collected by the irs. >> i thought that we had a principal that jurisdiction are narrowly construed. unless it's clear courts are not deprived of jurisdiction. i find it hard to think that this is clear. it's easy to think that it's not clear. >> well, the anti-injunction act applies not only to every tax in the code, but as far as i can tell to every tax penalty in the code. >> mr. long, you said before, and i think you were quite right that the tax injunction act is modelled on the anti-injunction act. after the tax injunction act what can't be enjoined is an assessment for the purpose of raising revenue. the tax injunction act does not apply to penalties that are designed to induce compliance with the law rather than to raise revenue. and this is not a revenue raising measure because if it's successful, nobody will pay the penalty. and there will be no revenue to raise. >> well in bob jones the court

they were called away to serve in the continental congress. they were called away to serve in the continental army or in the local militias. at this time, what their husbands' absences meant is that the burden of taking care of the farms and the families and the businesses fell, then, on the women. women, then, had to take over in their husband's absences and make sure that the family and the farm were tended to. sometimes they had to take care of and manage slaves or serva servants. a lot of women were not prepared for this. a lot of women suffered as a result of this. many people, especially the leaders, lost fortunes in the revolution because their farms and businesses suffered during the revolution. now, probably a lot of us have heard about what abigail adams experienced during the american revolution, how much she missed john adams, her husband, how much she wished they could be together. but adams' experience was not singular. many other women including esther debert reed experienced these feelings, experienced these periods of aloneness

the continental congress was meet agent the state house of maryland in annapolis. he entered the chamber to return to the congress what they had given him in june of 1775. in june of 1775, they had literally given him his commission as commander in chief of the army. on december the 23rd, 1783, general washington returned and in a very solemn, but brief ceremony, he literally returned to the congress his commission. and then left the chamber no longer general or commander in chief, but simply as mister. and to finish this hollywood set, he then rode home to mt. vernon and arrives home at mt. vernon christmas eve, 1783. a few days later, from mt. vernon, he writes to a friend how good it is, how good it is to be in retirement and to be a private citizen and to never again have to be called to public duty. on that, he was wrong. i'm not suggesting that in march of 1783 there would be a grand coup. a coup is a strike at government. there wasn't much government to strike at in march of 1783. but imagine for a moment if the army had, indeed, taken up arms or marched or

again, the question is how would you change congress? how would you make it more effective in order to get things done. 202 is the area code. 626-7962. senator barbara mccull ski reaching a milestone having served 35 years in the house and the senate. now the longest serving female member of congress in history. back in 1988 she talked about politics, gender politics, at the democratic national convention in atlanta. >> every family's got its worries. paying the mortgage. school cost. an ageing parent who needs help. some families shoulder more than seems possible. drug addiction. family violence. broken homes. but family life should be more than just coping or making ends meet. more than just pinching pennies and dipping into the nest egg. if there's anything that concerns the american family today, it's this. our government hasn't caught up with the new facts of american family life. families have changed, so why can't washington? new facts. moms working. nearly 65% of all mothers are working. part time, full time, all of the time. keep

does not have the power to promote commerce. congress has the power to regulate commerce, and if the power exceeds permissible regulatory authority then the law is invalid. >> surely the -- >> sorry. >> surely regulation includes the power to promote. ever since the new deal we've said regulation -- there's a market in agricultural products. congress has the power to subsidize, to limit production, all sorts of things. >> absolutely, chief justice, and that's the distinction i'm trying to craw. when they are acting within their enumerated power, then obviously they are promoting congress, but the solicitor general wants to turn it into a different power. he wants to say we have the power to promote commerce, to regulate anything to promote commerce, and if they have the power to promote commerce, then they have the power to regulate everything, right? >> i don't think you're addressing their main point which is that they are not creating commerce in health care. it's already there, and we're all going to need some kind of health care, mo

there is a strong business case for congressional approval of pntr, i urge the congress to quickly -- u.s. companies their workers and shareholders receive the benefits from the outset of russia's long-awaited wto membership. i'll be pleased to respond to any questions that the committee may have. >> thank you. >> chairman baucus, senator kyle and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on a subject that i feel is of critical importance, the opportunity to grow the u.s. economy and u.s. jobs by establishing u.s. trade relations with russia. i'm a u.s. citizen born and raised in new york, i joined ge in 1991 and for the past 13 years have been living and working in russia. for the peace six years, i have served as chairman of the chairman of commerce in russia. so i've been in a unique position to witness firsthand the dramatic changes russia has undergone in such a short period of time almost 1.2 million in u.s. origin ofrds in russia, up from 410 million in 2010. it's suppliers in the united states and we believe that our sales with pntr

the u.s. until congress changes tax laws. the company announced today it's going to begin paying a dividend to its shareholders and will buy back some stocks. moves that will require about $45 billion in cash over three years. but the company said it will rely exclusively on its domestic cash reserves. apple chief operating officer peter oppenheimer said in a conference call repatriating the cash from offshore would result in significant tax consequences under current u.s. law. >>> a new study by the center for public integrity ranking the states on the least to most corruptible puts new jersey at the top. this is a state where in 2009 three mayors, two assembly men and five rabbis were among 44 charged in a money laundering scheme. yet the center says it's analyzed 16,000 data points during a year-long study of public ethics laws in all 50 states. it hired reporters to support its findings and new jersey merited a b-plus, the highest grade, ahead of connecticut, which had a "b." washington state, california and nebraska all h

the framers consciously gave congress the ability to regulate commerce because that's not a particularly threatening activity that debraves you of individual freedom. if you were authorized to congress "a" to transfer property to "b" you have as the earlier cases put it a mons strous legislation which is injustice. everyone intuitively understands regulating people who voluntarily enter into contracts does not create the possibility of congress compelling wealth transfers among the citizenry, and that is precisely why the framers denied them the power to compel commerce and why they didn't give them plenary power. >> would you care to comment? >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> congress confronted a grave problem when it enacted at fordable care act. 40 million americans who can't get health insurance and suffer some often very terrible consequences. now we agree, i think everyone arguing this case, agrees that congress could remedy that problem by imposing insurance requirement at the point of sale. that won't work. the reason it won't work is because people will still show up at the h

the united states congress will always stand by israel and the united states congress will never allow israel to stand alone. the looming threat of nuclear iran cannot be ignored. ambiguity that could lead to serious miscalculations, which is what we collectively hope to avoid. it's my sincere preference and belief that the united states and israel both need to be clear in its communications with each other and our communications to the iranians. now is the time to stand together, and we are here today to tell our prime minister that congress intends to do so. madam pell sichlt pell sichlt. >> thank you mr. speaker. i'm pleased to join us in welcoming our distinguished guest, the prime minister of the jewish state of israel once again to the capitol of the united states. i associate myself with your remarks in terms of our commitment to the security of isra israel. our strategic partner is mutually beneficial to both of our countries. rejecting containment of iran and stopping them, preventing them from having a nuclear weapon is in our interest. it's in the interest of israel and the

this was for the final few months of the 40th congress which was set to expire in march of 1869. he made it clear that he intended to test the sincerity of his party's frequent needs. he wrote the ballot needs equal representation as well as equal rights. if men are still to be barred from congress as well as the white house on a count of the color of their faces then the race will not be adequate and the cause of equal rights will not be accomplished until men will be seen as equal. he won with 64% of the vote it would have made him the first african-american to serve in congress. but his opponent challengethed his right to be seated. as the house elections committee would soon uncover more than 80% of the votes there thrown out swinging the election to menard. thousands of african-american men appeared to be thrown out by fraud. republican simon jones challenged the validity of the vote arguing that jones, are you takie ining notes? that he was the rightful winner and there was no vacancy adding another layer of complexity that the louisiana second district in which this mess wa