-- once you're taking federal government money, the federal government money can make it back and that doesn't affect the voluntariness of your choice. because it does seem like a serious problem, we're assuming under the spending clause, the federal government cannot do this, under the constitution, it cannot do in. but if it gets the state to agree to it, then it can. and the concern is, if you can say if you don't agree to this, you lose all your money. whether that's really saying the limitation in the constitution is largely meaningless. do you recognize any limitation on that concern? >> i think the court has said that this is something that needs to be considered in an appropriate case and we acknowledge that. but i do think it's so -- >> you can't imagine a case in which it's germaine and coercive as far as you know? >> i'm not prepared to say right here. >> it's a surprise question. i think congress has authority to act. >> i can't think of one. i don't blame you for not thinking of one but i really do think it's important to look at an issue like this, it's got to be

-- once you're taking federal government money, the federal government money can take it back, and that doesn't affect the voluntariness of you problem. we're assuming the federal government cannot do this, under the constitution it cannot do this, but if it gets the state to agree to it, well, then it can, and the concern is if you can say if you don't agree to this you lose all your money, whether that's really saying the limitation in the is largely meaningless. >> well, but i don't think that this is a case that presents that question. >> no, no, i know. i know -- i don't know if i'll grant it to you or not, but let's assume it's not this case. do you recognize any limitation on that concern? >> i think the court has said in stewart machine and dole that this is something that needs to be considered in an appropriate case and we acknowledge that, but i do think it's so dependent on the circumstances that it's very hard to say in the abstract with respect to a particular program that there is -- >> you can't imagine a case in which it is both germane and yet coercive is wha

if the federal government decides to spend money through federal instrumentalities, and the citizen is hacked off about it, they can bring a federal complaint to a federal official working in a federal agency. and what makes this so pernicious is that the federal government knows that the citizenry is not going to take lightly the idea that there are huge, new federal bureaucracies popping up across the country. and so they get the benefit of administering this program through state officials, but then it makes it very confusing for the citizen, who doesn't like this. do they complain to the state official because it's being administered by a state official in a state building, or do they - >> but, mr. clement, that is very confusing because the idea behind cooperative federal/state programs was exactly a federalism idea. it was to give the states the ability to administer those programs. it was to give the states a great deal of flexibility in running those programs. and that's exactly what medicaid is. >> well, that's exactly what medicaid was. the question is, what will it be going

, in justice o'connor's dissent in dole and in some of the other literature, does address federalism concerns in the sense of the federal government using federal funding in one area to try to get states to act in an area where the federal government may not have article i authority. >> yes. >> but, as your honor suggested earlier, this is a situation in which, while it is certainly true that the federal government couldn't require the states, as the chief justice indicated, to carry out this program, the federal government could, as your honor suggested, expand medicare and do it itself. >> but do you agree that there still is inherent and implicit in the idea of federalism, necessary for the idea of federalism, that there be a clear line of accountability so the citizen knows that it's the federal or the state government who should be held responsible for their program? >> certainly, but i think the problem here is - >> and does coercion relate to that, or is that a separate - >> yes, but i think - >> -- is that a separate doctrine? >> well, i think it relates to it in the opposite way that my friends on the other side would lik

and it raises the question of whether the federal government, the congress through its power to tax can do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly. in other words, the federal government cannot directly order states to set up programs for their indigent citizens to help provide for their health care. but if through the taxing power, the court can compel states to enter into these nominal relationships, these federal/state partnerships, is the question that is before the court. and it raises the question under south dakota v dole about whether given that we're talking about now a program that is a federal program putting to the state proposition namely expand your medicaid or you will lose all of the current funds you get from the current funds you get from the federal government for your current medicaid recipients as to whether that will be unconstitutional in south dakota v dole. the court held that because the imposition amounted to only 5% of the federal transportation funds that came to the states, the compulsion required in urging the states to raise their drinking ag

would you be making the same argument instead of the federal government picking up 90% of the cost, the federal government picked up 100% of the cost? >> justice kagan, i would be making the exact same argument. >> the exact same argument. so that really reduces to the selection why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion? in other words, the federal government is here saying we're giving you a boat load of money. there are no matching funds requirement, there are no extrainous conditions attached to it. it's just a boat load of federal money for you to talk and spend on poor people's health care. it doesn't sound coercive to me, i have to tell you. >> well, i want to make the point, even if you had a stand-alone program that gave 100%. just 100%, boat load, nothing but boat load, it would still be a problem. >> well, you do make the argument and you're brief. no extraneous conditions. no matching funds is coercive? >> it is. but before i make the point, you built into your question the idea that there is no conditions. and when you first asked, what about the sam

so -- so how can you justify the federal government usurping the power of the state? the states, really, are the one people. >> chuck, thanks for the calint view, senator from james young on our facebook framers would h appalled there is no federal police p's the far left lack the intellectual honesty. they'd have to face the fact their policy dos not enjoy majority support. >> well, of course, my reading of the constitution, my understanding of the constitution is very different than that of the caller and, of course, the person who did that e-mail that you just read as well. under our constitutional system, the federal government does have authority over the states where it choosing to act and where it has authority to act and under the constitution, it can act wherever there, in whatever way it determines is necessary in order to regulate interstate commerce. and that's been very broadly defined by the supreme court. t health care law, the federal government, the congress and the president have chosen to take action to deal with this 50 million people who have not c

federal funds. in the most famous case on this is the south dakota versus dole case. that case the federal government required the state of south dakota to change its drinking age in exchange for receiving certain federal highway funds. and the state challenged that and said that was unconstitutional, interfered with the sate's authority as a sovereign to make these decisions for itself. the u.s. supreme court in a decision by justice rehnquist said that this was still constitutional. but there might be cases where congress was going too far. well, of course, just as in the takings clause cases we don't know what goes too far means. since then there's really been no development in the case law on this issue. and keep in mind that in that case in dole we were talking about 5%, i believe it was of the federal highway funds. i believe the total amount of $4.5 million. now we're talking about a tremendous amount of money as we saw. in fact, medicaid funding to states is usually federal health care funding in general is usually the largest single block of any state's budget. and the states are told that t

has done, they should not be surprised that the federal government -- they tied the strings, they shouldn't be surprised that the federal government isn't going to start pulling them. >> with all due respect, i just think it too important, the consequence of saying we're not going to police the coercion line here, shouldn't be it's just too hard so we'll give congress unlimited spending power. if you really can't complete in line then eyou should go back and say congress can spend money on things they can't pay for directly. there depends on being a line between coercion -- >> i don't understand your first answer to justice kagan. you don't see there being a difference between the federal government saying we want to take care of the poor. states, if you do this, we'll pay 100% of your administrative costs. you said that could be coercion. doesn't the amount of burden that the state undertakes to meet the federal obligation count in this equation at all? >> it certainly can, justice sotomay sotomayer. i didn't mean to suggest in answering mr. kagan's question was anything be

the states can invade federal authority and the federal government can invade state authority. and the federal government cannot invade state authority. if we lose this case, federalism is effectively dead. that is very inconsistent with justice kennedy's very consistent jurisprudence in this area. i view a ruling by justice kennedy that the individual mandate as constitutional would be a substantial departure from his past jurisprudence. there are others that do not thi think it is as substantial. justice scalia was in the majority in the last commerce case in 2005. that is a cause for concern. it was unique. that case was about marijuana. there are some people who think that certain justices will extend themselves to bring anything drug-related within the federal power. justice roberts, some people look at his joining the majority in the comstock case the week before the federal government filed their motion to dismiss as a harbinger of doom for our side. i do not see it that way, despite the very broad language of the case, which was a necessary and proper clause case. the ve

shouldn't be surprised that the federal government isn't going to start pulling them. >> with all due respect, mr. chief justice, i don't think we can say that the states have gotten pretty dependent so lats call this whole federalism thing off. i just think it's too important because, again, the consequence -- if you think about it, if the consequence of saying that we're not going to police the coercion line here shouldn't be that, well, you know, it's just too hard to we'll give the federal congress unlimited spending power. the consequence ought to be if you can't police this line, you ought to go back and reconsider your case that is say that congress can spend money on things it can't do directly. we're not asking you to go that far. we're simply saying that, look, your spending power cases absolutely depend on there being a line between co-certification co-certificatu >> could you tell me -- i don't understand your first answer to justice kagan. doesn't the amount of burden that the state undertakes to meet the federal obligation count in this equation at all? >> it certainly c

the federal power. justice roberts, some people look at his joining majority in the -- case the week before the federal government filed their motion to dismiss as a harbinger of doom for our side. i do not see it that way, despite the very broad language of the case, which was a necessary and proper clause case. the very last paragraph of the majority opinion brings very broad language down through a very thin final -- funnel. the federal government cannot get this bill through that final -- funnel. there has not been enough time since that case to assess how justice roberts will come out. >> seth has been following the national, political, presidential campaign. this decision is right in the middle of it. >> let's talk about political ramifications. how will this affect the presidential race? and your races in virginia? >> this is just one man's opinion, who has not backed a candidate at this public, that the race is just down to two people effectively, though ron paul and newt gingrich could defect -- affect it. one of them was riding in favor of a national mandate. santorum has not. in 2010, just in virginia,

government's relationship to the states. federal government can't -- we all know from the coercion cases that the federal government couldn't force the states to do certain things. new york v united states, congress can't compel a state legislature to pass certain laws. well it also shouldn't be allowed to say, you have to give us your money. you have to give us federal income taxes and taxes for us to spend as we will, and we'll give some of that back to comply with our demands. and our demand exceed our constitutionally authorized powers. that is an unreasonable way of interpreting the constitution. how do i think the court's going to rule? you know, it's hard to tell this is as i said basically a blank slate. we have butler from 1936 and we have the dole case. that's about it. no court so far as i know, has ever enforced the spending clause as a shield against federal power. and i think that -- the justices will be skeptical of wading into this area. but, i think that dole makes it very clear that some things have to go too far.

the issue. >> it's not about birth control. it's about government control. it's about the federal government dictating everything to us and that's the thing about the affordable care act. it's going to give the federal government the opportunity to control every aspect of our lives and tell us what to eat. they can tell us what kind of clothes to wear. they can tell us what kind of air conditioner or heating we can have in our homes and how much we can use. they can dictate everything to us. it is opening the door to the proverbial pandora's box of government control. this is the greatest attack upon our freedom. this is an attack on religious freedom. it wasn't about birth control. it's about the federal government controlling our lives. and that's exactly what this administration wants to do. they want to control every aspect of our lives. so this doesn't have anything to do with birth control. it really has to do with government control. >> let me get a tweet in here from michael. he says representative brown, which particular parts of obama care is going to destroy the doctor/

they should pay insurance to the federal government. federal government budget and have the money for this. but the state and local, i think to them it's a small premium. don't need to put money aside for the one in a hundred year storm, snow or whatever and doesn't make sense economically. >> brenda: matt, your thoughts? >> my thoughts, i tend to agree with jonas, we see these events happening more and more. i think at the state level you have to have some money put aside. looking ahead to fiscal year 2013, 29 states there already have shortfalls over half the states. 47 billion dollars shortfall, so, we have issues going forward. then we have something like this, and a tragic event that hits, you know, anywhere, it could happen anywhere in our country and we have to have the money put aside and the federal government doesn't have the money right now either and i think we need to take this more seriously and put the money aside. if it's not the best use of money, i don't care, i'd rather have the money for our citizens in our country. >

it's a joint program between the federal government and the es it does vary. states -- federal requirements that certain income levels must covered, but some of the states exceed those guidelines and they cover more people. bigger program than medicare. medicaid currently covers 60 million people. >> the court hasing oral arguments in the mornings this week.ning today two issues, though, looking at severability andondrd of oral arguments when the court looks at medicaid and whether the affordable care act's expansion of the medicaid program violates the constitution. let's go now to charlene. take us through what the affordable care act does to medicaid. >> so i know it sounds very complicated to a lot of people, but put very simply, the let reform really juan cover more people under the medicaid program. so there's a federal poverty limit now, and states cover people up to level. what this does, it expands that and requires that under the medicaid program than they currently have to cover. here are the numbers to calm. republicans -- and independent callers, 2

-- the federal government is going to do with federal tax dollars really couldn't be more antithetical to what the constitution says and what was intended to mean. >> what you said is perfectly correct when it comes to national defense. all right. let's go to the audience. please identify yourself and any affiliation you may have. >> hi. my name is melissa ortiz, which rhymes with quiz not to be confused with ortiz. i am the founder of the common sense approach to disability issues. i have a couple of questions. my first question for everybody on that platform is did you or did you not read the legislation in its purest form, all 2,000 pages of it? >> no. >> no. >> absolutely not. >> nor did anyone in congress. >> well again, let me state that my name is melissa ortiz, and i did, all 2,000 pages of it. and frankly, i am bothered by the fact that not only are we not discussing some things that need to be discussed -- i mean not just medicaid, medicare, that individual mandate, we need to be discussing why our gover

the federal government has some responsibility for rapid rise. college costs have risen at twice the rate of inflation for about 30 year fps these rapid increases would have been constrainted if the federal government had not stepped in so often to subsidize rising tuitions. the chairman ensures that the programs are sustainable and the students most in need can access assistance. one program that the chairman marks is pell grants. the pell grant program has grown to a level that's difficult to susta sustain. ux pangss were included in 2007, the higher education act of 2008. the stimulus bill in 2009 and the student aid and fiscal responsibility act of 2010. these numerous expansions, coupled with the dramatic rise in the number of eligible students due to the recession have caused pell grant spending to more than double from $16.1 billion in 2008 to an estimated $36.4 billion in 2013. recent studies have demonstrated that the increases in pell grants appear to be matched one for one with increases in tuition in private universities. this increase

how many more years do you see the federal government having to support the nuclear power industry? >> as i indicate earlier, that the economic issues are really beyond our scope. >> whose scope is it? do you think the federal government should spend another 60 years supporting these guys. >> refer the question to the department of energy. >> how many more years do you think the federal government has to subsidize nuclear power? >> i see these as policy deliberations that occur in the congress and the loan guarantee program is in law and executed by the department of energy. >> mr. chairman. >> i think, senator, when we look at nuclear power plants, one of the things we want to make sure is they have the financial resources to be able to support safe operation. >> right. >> so it is very important that these utilities can finance the plants and ensure they have appropriate workforce. so you know, in the end, these financial -- do have an impact on safety. and it is important fa -- >> but why can't the private sector make them safe? my friends over here tell me about the genius of the

and implicit in the idea of federalism necessary for the idea of federalism that there rhode be a clear line of accountability for the citizen knows it is the federal or the state government that should be held responsible for the programs. islamic certainly the problem -- >> does relate to that? is that a separate -- >> i think it relates to it in the opposite way that my friend would like to in that i think their argument is that would suggest to such a high degree of the state to withdraw from the program that is antalya will trees and that is where the affect comes from. >> the answer would be the state wants to preserve its integrity, its responsibility in the federal system. and of course it may do so. estimate does and the question come down -- maybe you can answer this but isn't conceivable to you evidently not to congress that any state would turn down this offer that they can't refuse? is it conceivable to you that any state would have said no to this program? congress didn't think that because its other provisions are based on the assumptions that every single state would be in this thing. can you conceive of the state saying no, and if you can't, that sounds l

the federal funds. i've adjusted for the fact that the federal government is providing match, but it's not reported as a federal match. it's all recorded as part of the general fund. but i'm assuming the match would have been 50 mernt in any case. i'm reducing what is prorted as massachusetts expenditure by 50%. despite that you see a ramp up in spending. now one question is there is a ramp up. you can see that. is it because of the recession? for example in the 2001 episode, the recession caused the jump up in enrollment and spending. is the latest ramp up because of the recession or mom nee care. you can get some idea if you look at all the surrounding states vermont, connecticut, new hampshire and maine. which are in the same region. but from vermont, new hampshire and maine. the lines decline and they show no secular increase or consistent increase over the 2000 decade as is the case with massachusetts. i went down to the weeds and saw there is an increase in the red line of 2009-2010 is because of the recession because revenues and the size of the general fund reduced considerably, which is why the

and we all know in the real world to the extent the federal government continues to make taxes that decreases the stability. the states would have a claim against the federal government raising their taxes because somehow the states will feel coerced to lower their tax rate? >> no, justice sotomayor. i'm suggesting it's not the case to say, well, it's free money so we don't have to ask if the program is coerced. >> counsel, what percentage does it become coercive? meaning, as i look at the figures i've seen from a me guy, there are some states for whom the percentage of medicaid funding to their budget is close to 40%, but there are others that are less than 10%. and you say across the board this is coercive because no state even at 10% can give it up. what's the percentage of big gift the federal government can give? because you're saying for a bankrupt state there's no gift the federal government could give them ever. no matter how much the federal government doesn't want to subsidize some other state obligation. the federal government can't give them 100% of their needs. >> and justice sot

the federal government is. and seems to me it's an entirely different question when you ask yourselves whether or not there are going to be limits on the federal power as opposed to on the states which was the issue in loughner. >> i agree, except, mr. chief justice, what the court has said, as i read the court's cases, is that the way in which you ensure that the federal government stays in its sphere and the sphere reserved to the states is protected is by policing the boundary. is the national government regulating economic activity with substantial effect on interstate commerce? >> but the reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act in the law of torts, our tradition, our law has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person's in danger. the blind man's walking in front of a car, you do not have a duty to stop him. absence some relation between you. and there's a severe moral criticism of that rule bu that's generally the rule. and here the go

the constitutional structure makes federal lawsuit came to the states. the 14th amendment gave the federal governmentxtensive supervisory powers over the state's to prevent states from trampling on individual rights, but that is beside the point, because the question is whether or not congress can require people to have health insurance under its power to regulate commerce or perhaps through taxing power. that does not implicate the states. most lower federal courts -- all federal courts say the states have now interest -- have no interest in trying to prevent citizens, their residents, fighting the federal government, which the citizens elect, has decided to do. the only interest is in the medicaid program where they have a financial stake. they say they like the program because it helps them with their own responsibilities. >> we will hear more about medicaid later in the program. before we let you go, you have been a court reporter for a long time. what is this like for you? guest: well, it is different in you can sense the importance. the room is filled. the room is often filled, but here, the te

they gave us a constitution that limits the federal government. it limits the powers of the federal government in 18 specific ways. it does not seek to increase the power of the federal government in any way, shape, or form. but what has happened through the years is every time we have seen the federal government act in a way that is ostensibly for the common good, it assumes more power for itself every time it assumes more responsibility. this was not what the people continued to say that the founding fathers were bonds of evil slave owners. the vast majority of them were very much conflicted -- convicted in their consciences about slavery but at the time of the founding, slavery had existed as the economic system of the south and trench for 160 years. the southern states were not going to join the union if the federal government was going to tell them how to run their economic system. >host: thank her for the call. welcome to constitution 101. guest: i really don't have a comment on the issue of the views of the founding fathers on slavery but i

saying that's not a power that's within the commerce power of the federal government. is something much greater and would have been much more controversial. that's an important thing. federal 45, madison says the commerce power a new power, not one anyone has apprehension about. the reason they didn't have any apprehension about it is because it's a power only operated once people were already in commerce. you see that from the tefcts clau text of the clause. commerce with foreign nations. did anyone think the fledgening republic had the power to compel this? of course not. in the same way, if the framers had understood the commerce power to include the power to compel people to engage -- >> well, once again, though. who's in commerce and when are they in commerce? if the effect of all these uninsured people is to raise everybody's premiums, not just when they get sick if they get sick, but right now, in the aggregate, and wickered and raish tell us we should look at the aggregate and the aggregate of all these uninsured people are increasing the normal family premium,

it is the federal government's responsibility to protect us and keep us safe from attack. that's the reason we created a federal government in 1787. the primary impetuous for doing that was to protect the nation. i think it's a legitimate responsibility to make sure cockpits are defended so airplanes can't be used as weapons against our country again. >> based upon the current federal budget for this program to be $22 million, the amount of money each pilot is paid to participate in the program, i would suggest as i have done on the hill, that the pilots are paying for the program right now. way far and above whatever the federal government is paying right now. if you look at over $400 million spent by pilots, $22 million to $25 million by the federal government, pilots are paying for it. >> i'll go down the panel and see if there are last thoughts or comments before we close. >> i'll just remind you this has been an uphill battle for ten years. little over ten years. it was an uphill battle to get the program initiated. there's great resistance to that. there's been great

the federal government has offered three arguments why the the the insurance mandate is within congress' power. they say it's allowed under the commerce clause, the tax clause, and a necessary and proper clause. but all three of these arguments have the same weakness that is accepted by the court, they would lead to virtually unlimited congressional power. so i did like to start out with a commerce clause argument which is the one that has been emphasized the most in the litigation so far. the commerce clause gives congress the power to regulate cloak, among the several states. so right away when you just look at the text of the clause it seems clear that in order to be authorized by that clause, the measure has to be to requirements. first it has to regulate commerce and second the commerce that it regulates must be interstate. on these criteria the individual mandate is over too. it's not regulated and commerce, not having health insurance is not commerce. and it's not regulating anything that is interstate either. moreover, this sort of common sense interpretation of the clause is ac

the best government to do it? is it the government closest to the people, which is the state and local governments, or a federal governmentt is maybe revi removed from the issues that effect the people. that is what federalism is that we have dual solve rpities that -- sovereignties. that the federal government does what it is best at, waging war, fortune relations and state governments take care of the rest. that is up for grabs. there is a more fundamental issue at stake and the caller pen points it. -- pinpoints it. that is redistribution. this healthcare law is a redistributionist measure. that may be whether you have to do when you are attempting to cover those who don't have insurance. but it is a nice question whether the state and local governments can arrive at a fairer solution. i believe they can. than can the federal government. so, we will see some of that discussion. what we're addressing is fundamental questions about the nature of our republic and whether we should allow dictates from a central body or let the people themselves decide the questions. host: stephen presser, who is arguing against this law in

there are going to be costs to set that up, but under the statute the federal government is going to pay 90% of those costs. the shoerosts, and then all of the projection that is we have seen suggests that the medium to long-term costs once these changes are going to be in place are going to be dramatically lower. >> obviously the federal government isn't bound to na. what if after the 90% they say, well, now from now on we're going to pay 70%. what happens then? where does that extra money come from? >> well, i think then the states would have a choice at that point whether they were going to stay in the program or not. but that isn't what we have here. >> there's no -- they can just bail out whenever the government reduces the amount of the percentage that it's willing to pay, the states can say -- >> i'm not saying it would be an easy choice, mr. chief justice. >> they'd have to bail out of medicaid. >> that would be -- right, this would be the option. they can leave medicaid if they decide that isn't working for them. i'm not saying this is an easy choice. i'm also not saying it w

very strange relationship that many alaskans feel with the federal land management agencies and the perceived overreach of the federal government into their lives. whether it's the ran cher activity on the yukon river or the lack of cooperation and coordination by refuge managers, i think these are legitimate grievances. we need to work with you on this. so i hope that you'll make it a priority to improve that relationship. next is an issue that affects not only alaska, but many others. and these are the new and the higher fees and royalties from interior within this budget. i know that the philosophy is that the federalr th many state rates. but you've got to admit that this isn't exactly a one-sided bargain. those states easily trump the federal government in terms of regulatory stability. so when we ask them to pay more while providing less, it really doesn't work. i note that the chairman has mentioned the statistics that the president also has repeated, that oil and gas production is up. that is true. but when you look to the oil and gas production on federal lands, we've actually seen 11% decrease on federal -- on the fed

the fundamental principles of our government a government of limited and enumerated powers, whether the statasovereignty or instrumentalities of the federal government. the stakes are definitely higher. >> any comments that stick o a questions -- >> no. it was a great sign that all of the justices were sngad and so thoughtful about the issues in this case. particularly this afternoon's session. the question of whether or not the federal government can coerce the states from spending pow sir something that court has talked about in a number of oaf cases but never struck in and ta ground. when we asked them to review that aspect,lot of people said the court wouldn't be interested. they were proven wrong today by how serious all of the justices were in considering these cases. i think they all understand whether they vote for us or against us, they all understand that this is really a fundamentalsuf government. >> that's right. >> from the first session this morning, do you think of the judges to want were to strike down the whole law? because then it would be sort of in their hands? >> well, you know -- you know, i think obviously, no justi

not the federal government. congress created the program that allowed the county to take title to this land. the purpose at that time was to help communities like this to do what the bill says it should do. congress has the authority to do this and should have the common sense to allow the county to do this. . there have been concerns that this will lead to an avalanche of these types of requests. let's be clear. this is just one specific proposal dealing with one parcel of land totaling 32 acres, not 320 acres, not 3,200, just 32 acres. there are thousands of lands that have been tfered through the land to park -- transfered through the land to park program. this involves an exthreemly small -- extremely small amount of land. there are absolutely instances in which communities and states would be better off if the federal red tape on private landownership was lifted. just as there were instances where reducing federal landownership would be beneficial to local communities and states. yet, here we are to debate t

even with the mandate in place it could collapse and the federal government does not have the authority to put in place another essential component. those subsidies. in health insurance exchanges which is where the magic of obamacare is supposed to happen created by the federal government and another reason this law may collapse if states do not set them up. what will happen if the supreme court strikes down the mandate and the price control, preexisting condition provision? what we will be left with are a lot of health insurance subsidies and expanded medicaid program and a lot of cuts to medicare and taxes. those are not going to destabilize the health-insurance market. it may stabilize employer sponsored insurance because the employer mandate might be struck down as well. because of that, it could still be so unstable that congress will have to revisit this law and reopen it. there will be at least one house or high likelihood of one chamber of commerce -- congress that will be satisfied with full repeal of the law. >> wafer the microphone. start right here. state your name and any a

and the federal government would say oh, by the way, if you don't take the option we're giving you, we're going to have the federal subsidy. if you don't take this offer that we're giving you, your tax dollar also fund the other 49 states and you'll get nothing. but this situation is even more coercive, even than your hypothetic hypothetical. so it's as if there's another program for post secondary education that gave them exactly your option, option, and then they also said, you not only not get these funds, but you lose the post secondary funds as well. it's hard to understand tieing the preexisting participation in the program as anything other than coercive. the solacicitor general -- one the things the expansion does, precisably because the expansion is designed to convert medicate to satisfy the requirement of the minimum essential coverage. things that used to be voluntary, will no longer be voluntary. the perfect example is prescription coverage. it's a big part of what some states provide voluntarily now. it will no longer be mandatory because the federal government has agreed th

that is coercion by the federal government. e of obamacare and the reason it's channeled constitutionally is it's such an overextension of the power of the central government, in every area. mandate against the individual, but here it's against the states. it's establishing itself as supreme court. if they order an individual to enter into a contract, whatsoever, no limit to what the federal government can do. the answer is no. if it can so threaten the states after it's been baiting and switching on them for half a century, medicaid, supposed to be a partnership, share all of this. it's now a huge element of every state government. the feds withdraw the money. states are terrible trouble. they have no choice. it is extortion. that is why i think they have played this strong case. although i'm not sure that conservative justices will want to go 3-0 on this. they might throw a bone to the other side. give them a win. because really important issues are the mandate and whether the whole bill. if the whole bill collapses medicaid e

. >> saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act and that is different from what we have in previous cases. >> well. >> it changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual, in a very fundamental way. >> and the core principle in anthony kennedy's jurisprudence is liberty. that is individual liberty. you've seen it in gay rights cases, but he talks about the separation of powers. if one part of government, the federal government, doesn't get too large or too powerful, you protect individual liberty with tension between state power and federal power, that's really a central issue in this case, isn't it? >> well, there's no question about it and the government's case denies that it involves any of that sort of thing. which is one of the reasons they were having such difficulty making their argument. and as chief justice roberts pointed out at one point. the federal government has enumerated power, we know what they are and they are limited and the-- the question that they kept putting to the government's lawyers is in w

the federal government says yes. ere has ever been a case like this ever before in the over 200 years since the constitution was passed. the federal government has never compel people to buy a product under the guise of regulating commerce. that is the centerpiece of the case. there is another constitutional issue, that is the tax argument. that arose after the case began. when we file our case on march 23 of 2010, this was all about the commerce clause. if you go and look to the press coverage there in that first month, a lot of criticism about what we were doing and why and a lot of questioning. there was a lot of predicting the federal government would win. we just kept making and we addressed the limited size of government. this was to much power. as he kept making the case, gradually, it became very clear that the other side begin to get worried that they could lose. they started out saying this is a slam dunk and we will never lose. of course, we won in the district court. about a month later, in april 2010, if

tough questions of both sides. >> but justice kennedy was among those that questioned whether the federal government has the power to order people to buy health insurance or anything else. >> that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way. >> the four liberal justices offered a ringing defense of the law. >> a disease is sweeping the united states. and 40 million people are susceptible of whom 10 million will die. can't the federal government say all 40 million get inoculation? >> state government can solve those problems. federal government is limited government. >> how can you wait until after you get hit by a car to go out and purchase insurance? it's impossible. >> no. obviously once you go to the emergency room, they can sign you up. >> but the justices tough questions do not always presage their final vote. and justice kennedy, the potential swing vote here may have had just tough questions for the laws opponents as for its supporters. at the supreme court, bruce leshan, 9news now. >> so, new today's proceedings mean the court will strike do

asked questions to both sides. >> but justice kennedy was among those that asked whether the federal government has the power to order people to buy health insurance or anything else. >> that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual. very fundamental way. >> the four liberal justices offered a ringing defense of the law. >> a disease is sweeping the united states. and 40 million people are susceptible of whom 10 million will die. can't the federal government say all 40 million get inoculation? >> how can you wait until after you get hit by a car to go out and purchase insurance? it's impossible. >> no, obviously, once you go to the emergency room, they can sign you up. >> but the conservative justices also asked the laws opponents some pretty tough questions and the justices questions do not always accurately prestage the final vote. and there are plenty of pundents that say they are going to be reluctant to see another 5-4 ruling that may open the supreme court to charges that is overly partisan. anita. >> so much back and forth and it will be interesting to see if

they gave us a constitution that limits the federal government. limits the -- the powers of the federal government in 18 specific ways. it does not seek to increase the power of the federal government in any way, shape or form, but what's happened down through the years is that every time we have seen several government actions in a way that the common good, it assumes more power for itself every time it assumes more responsibility. >> uh-huh. >> caller: this is not what the founding fathers had in mind. secondly i want to address the neem have called about the compromise and continue to say that the foun

and new york could no more tell the federal government what to do with the federal government's moneyhan the federal government can tell new york what to do with the moneys that new york is collecting. >> right. and if new york and the united states figured out a way to tax individuals at greater than 100% of their income, then maybe you could just say it's two separate sovereigns, two separate taxes, but, we all know that in the real world, that to the extent the federal government continues to increase taxes, that decreases the ability of the states to tax their own citizenry, and it's a real tradeoff. >> is that a limit on the federal government's power to tax? >> what's that? >> are you suggesting that at a certain point, the states would have a claim against the federal government raising their taxes because somehow the states will feel coerced to lower their tax rate? >> no, justice sotomayor, i'm not. what i'm suggesting is that it's not simply the case that you can say, well, it's free money, so we don't even have to ask whether the program's coercive. >> now, counsel, what pe

i don't think there's ever been a suit where over half the states had sued the federal government over the constitutionality. >> but there is such a suit right now. and paul clement carried the ball for the opponents in the supreme court argument over whether the health reform act is constitutional. today was day three as the court focused on two questions. can the rest of the law survive if the court kills the requirement that everyone buy insurance and does the law go too fire in ordering states what to do with their medicaid program? gary nurenberg is here to report that whatever the answers are your healthcare costs will be affected. >> reporter: after tuesday's blistering questions about the individual mandate to buy insurance -- >> the individual mandate looks doomed to me. >> reporter: the court wednesday heard arguments about whether the rest of the law can stay on the books if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional. >> my approach would say if you take the heart out of this statute, the statute is gone. >> reporter: the administration concedes provisions like requiri

the federal government is standing by to give vta valley transportation authority 900 million dollars to use towards project. here is what the plan will look like this 10 mile tension from fremont to -- will cost 2.3 billion dollars. 900 million will come from the federal government. the state is expected to kick in around 650 million. the rest of the it will come from a local sales tax measure that voters approved in 2008. this project is also expected to create 5500 construction jobs. the first one million dollars of that 900 will be received today during a big ceremony and celebration. word is construction could begin as early as next month. south bay leaders say they've lobbied more tan a decade to get this funding. leaders say the 900 million dollars from the federal government -- never would have materialized if santa clara county residents had not voted yes on two sales tax measures in order to help bart fund this project. we mentioned the ceremony the celebration will get underway at 10:00 this morning. expect to see the mayor, members of congress, members of bart, this is a v

caller: if the federal government forces the states to violate their religion beliefs by violating the free expression clauses of the united states constitution by forcing states to fund abortion and federal government is breaking the tenth amendment. host: what about the abortion provision? there is great uncertainty of how this will play out a lot of people think it is quite possible that it is actually going to be libel abortion coverage provided in these plans offered on these new exchanges. the language we ended up with is that companies can offer plans that include abortion coverage on these exchanges, on these marketplaces where we're going to buy insurance, but people who buy into those plans are going to have to write separate checks, make separate payments every month for their premiums, one to go to the bulk of their coverage, and then a very small payment like a dollar a month or something to go towards the abortion coverage a lot of people think this is going to be so unwieldy for the inshiewrpers to implement and a lot of people will think this is crazy. why do have i i h