unconstitutional? unconstitutional??he formmr assistant football coach acted like a pedophile. pedophile.this suggests the uuiverrity was warned about sandusky is currently 50 counts of child sexual as - abuse. he plld nottguiltyy a.../ bold... smass- and grab robbeey.../ at... a... jewelry ssore.../ in... akron, ohio. --car crashingginto store-- thievvs used.. .a... stolenns-u-v... to night...// áábeffreááá taking... as... much as ...they could.../ at... "taylor made"... áápoliceáá chhsed... after them,.../ áábuttá the robbers ... got.... store's owner áthháá - ...says.../ tte... most expensive jewelry ...was not taken,...// was in... a ault. it... - &p3 3 &p3oss to vytas--- and mmney..../ how much connested roads... could be costing you. "i wws terrified. i hhd a pillowcaseeover my head and my back. and aateen abducced at gunpointt.. why her church pastoo staged the kiinapping tooteach her a lesson. -3 [ male announcer ] for making cupcakes and deposits at the same time. for paying your friend back for lunch from your

i expect it to be ruled unconstitution unconstitutional. thank you. >> i have a power point, but i have no object. >> you are about to get one. ask and you shall receive. >> thank you. hello. take a deep breath. cleansing breath. this is a really good panel because i don't agree with anybody on it [ laughter ] >> nina, i thought we were co-counsel. >> we are co-counsel. i want to say thank you very much for bringing me here. i want to thank the university, the law school, whatever the slipper is. i want to thank alex and pam, especially. as which co-counsel, she has done the heavy laboring on a number of briefs that we have done at the supreme court. how do you go forward? >> the right button. >> the right button goes forward. partisanship? not so much. i don't agree. let's talk about texas. here is my position. republican versus democrat. outmoded thinking. this is not a reflection of texas. this will become vestigial everywhere else. i think where the real issue is and where people need to be paying attention is on latino population growt

unconstitution unconstitutional. thank you. >> i have a power point, but i have no object. >> you are about to get one. ask and you shall receive. >> thank you. hello. take a deep breath. cleansing breath. this is a really good panel because i don't agree with anybody on it [ laughter ] >> nina, i thought we were co-counsel. >> we are co-counsel. i want to say thank you very much for bringing me here. i want to thank the university, the law school, whatever the slipper is. i want to thank alex and pam, especially. as which co-counsel, she has done the heavy laboring on a number of briefs that we have done at the supreme court. how do you go forward? >> the right button. >> the right button goes forward. partisanship? not so much. i don't agree. let's talk about texas. here is my position. republican versus democrat. outmoded thinking. this is not a reflection of texas. this will become vestigial everywhere else. i think where the real issue is and where people need to be paying attention is on latino population growth and latino political mobilization and the challenges of incumbents to both political parties and leadership. let's start with context. this is latino population growth between 2000 and 2010. it is very similar to la tino growth from 2000. green is african-american. yellow is other non-hispanic. the smallest growth is white alone, not hispanic. we call anglos in texas. if you combine both decades, we have not gained a seat, anglos have grown by 1.1 million in texas. let's start from there. you will see from the west which is 16. overpopulated by 16,000. big west texas is 23. the love of my life and the subject of litigation, overpopulated by over 150,000. district 20, over by 13,000. 28, out of loredo, 153,000. then corpus christi to brownsville, texas. overpopulated by 43,000. if you add up the overpopulation of these existing latino majority districts, you get three quarters of a distr chall districters who did not want to increase the number of latino opportunity districts. so here is the seventh district and the one we proposed which runs from san antonio to east austin. this was the idea that the leadership thought was a good idea. they incorporated a versus of it in the congressional map that the state passed. this was opposed vigorously by the democratic leadership. it goes in and gets latinos out of the district of a current angelo congressional incumbent. alex, where did you go? what is his name? lloyd doggett. lloyd was not included in this district, but was planning to move in and run and did not want to run in a latino majority district and face a latino majority. let's talk about dallas/ft. worth. where the angelo population of dallas county dropped over 200,000 in the decade. here you have a lot of latino population that runs east/west. which is why you see the state's enacted plan carving districts north and south. you see districts scooping from the south and you see districts scooping from the north. the one i want to point your attention to is the district from the south in denton county. the lightning bolt down into the latino areas of tarrant county. it is still about partisanship, isn't it in they want to try to break up democrats and put them in republican districts. i want to show you how carefully this line carves through tarrant county to pick up the red areas which are latino voting majority block groups compared to african-american citizen voting age block groups. the lightning bolt only gets latinos and leaving african-americans in other districts where their vote is diluted as well. i know you care about congress and that's what it about. anybody here from texas? where are you from? >> college station. >> you have to love it. we're going to talk about the county in south texas. you don't care about the house map. i do. look at the orange district in the middle. that is nemo. that is 34% hispanic voting citizen. it is next to another hispanic voting age majority district hd 34. it shares with an angelo majority district. keep your eye on nemo. oh, he's gone. look what happened? they shoved all of the latinos over in hd 34. as many as they could. nemo has disappeared and broken up and is no longer there. there he is. now he's gone. and this was what was done in the state's enacted map. if anybody needs a definition of retrogression. that is retrogression. here are the antlers in el paso. 77 is the latino majority district. 78 is the district that is barely latino majority, but represented by a state representative that is not a candidate of choice. how do you protect a guy in 78 who is not a candidate choice in an 80% latino county? you go with antlers and you get most of his latino precincts leaving behind a latino minority district in a very heavily latino county. i love the antlers. these antlers do not line up with precincts. they split 14. they don't hug the mountain as originally tried. they do line up very well with the highest concentration of block groups with hispanic citizen. here is a failure to add a new valley house seat. the top map is the house enacted. lots of seats in the rio grand area. there was enough overpopulation in the existing districts to create a whole new district right there inside two counties. the state did not do it. we proposed what you see is the big purple on the bottom map. that was the additional district that cameron and idalgo county had enough population for but which was never drawn. what is at stake in that is in cameron and idalgo county. that picture was taken by one of my witnesses who in the trial began to weep on the stand when he told the story of a priest having giving the last rites to a boy burned in a fire and the police could not come because the streets were not paved. when we think about redistricting as maps and lines and colors and numbers, that's what it is about. that is the difference between having another seat in the valley and another voice in austin compared to not. so the three-ring circus. what did you call it? the trifecta? >> yes. >> we challenged the plans in texas the western district of texas in san antonio. it has been a long road since july. we went into a very compressed discovery period. lots of exchanging of things. lots of depositions. we tried the case on the first workday after labor day. we tried it into mid-september and then we did post trial briefs. we did more briefing in another mini trial. by that time, the state of texas was under way with its lawsuit in the washington d.c. federal court seeking pre-clearance from the courts. i have to disagree with ellen here. if they submitted the plans, the doj would have objected. as doj objected to the house plan in 2001 under bush ii. we would have gotten an objection. texas in its wisdom chose to go to court and filed an unsuccessful summary judgment. we filed that case january 17th until the day before yesterday. in the middle of all that was the appeal interim maps. we have to have elections and we have an early primary elections in texas. they are held the first week in march. the backed up deadlines including under the new military voters and precinct and all of that bring us into october 2011 which is why the district court in texas, you may wonder, include interim plans in november because we have very early election deadlines. the political parties are putting a lot of pressure on the district court in san antonio because they need to hold their political conventions in june. prior to that, they need to select their delegates. that is what they do. besid besides nominating people, they select for the kconvention. we tried to stay on schedule somehow. we will see if we do. there is now a new april 3rd primary date which we which or may not be able to make. we are trying. one of the things and you heard people talk about racially polarized voting. there is a lot of racially polarized voting in texas. we cannot slap a partisan label on what is going on here. what is important to us is the racially polarized voting within primaries. because of that, non latino incumbents are very concerned about losing the primary to a latino challenger. for example, not just in the congress plan where we were proposing an additional district that was opposed by the democratic leadership and democratic incumbent, the same thing happened in the house. we still have incumbent in a district that is 45% voter registration. there are no other latino majority districts around there. let's take these folks and put them inside and bump them up to 50%. who was the most aggressive opponent about that? theres were some latino who were concerned about the latino population within their districts. which translates into pressure to change some of their policy positions. if your district is 40% latino or 45% latino or 48% latino, you cannot run around saying deport everybody. that's not going to work. there is a pressure there to change the policy positions to seek out the support of your latino constituents. there is some reaction and you will see it in the texas plan of trying to draw districts that have some latinos in them, but not enough to be able to change the outcome of the election for an incumbent who doesn't want to change policy position in the general election. so you see lots of different kinds of fracturing in the plans to meet those ends. that is why you can see, apox on both houses with respect to democrats and republicans. this is basically what i just told you. and the potential large amounts of flexibility in latinos have in texas with partisanship. we have not had the same experience as california. you know there is a lot of mobility here, but people are not sure how to respond. what we are seeing right now on the part of both political parties is not by reaching out or being inclusive position wise but fracture incumbents. what latinos have done? we have been litigating a lot since july in just this state. we have formed together into coalitions to try to accomplish the litigation. there is a lot of awareness. don't be fooled. there is a lot of awareness that the vra is being invoked by both political parties to serve their own political ends. why is the press still reporting this as democrats versus republicans? because they are very confused and they are not paying attention. they haven't seen or haven't recognized the increasing mobilization of the latino community. they are very distracted by democrats versus republicans. nobody is paying attention to what is going on in court. i read stuff that is completely not reflecting what is going on in court both in media and sometimes in the academy. also you get a lot of drum beat from the political operatives this is about democrats getting screwed or this is republicans something else. i don't think it is about any of that. then, of course, at the end, the vra has outlived its utility. it is really helping us. i'm not going to agree it outlived its utility. we have strong claims in the case. i'm looking to the future. that is what it is about. that's what it is about. my son is 15 years old. he came with me today. he will vote soon. but not too soon. he won't be -- he won't after we die in texas, but not before we are 18. he will be voting in this decade. it is not just my own interest in casting an undeligiluted vot. that is where we are going. i think there will be greater latino participation in primaries, and in generals. we will present a tremendous challenge with our population growth. i think both political parties will have to wise up and stop fracturing and start reaching out. what is the ideals for the latino community? knock on your door and say i want your vote. hopefully that will cause the latino-ization of both political platforms. thank you. >> i want to give the panelists to respond to each other and we will take questions from the floor as well. i don't know. maybe start in reverse order. nina, is there anything you want to ask joshua or ellen? >> i don't think i have any questions. >> okay. joshua, did you have questions for nina or ellen? >> same. >> i guess i'll ask ellen if you have questions. i guess you all have answers. not so many questions. >> i feel slightly off. nina was just a force here. we have to speak -- i want to back up with something that joshua said. i think one of the difficulties in the section five constitutionality question is the claim that why don't the cover jurisdictions look worse than the non-covered? pam made a powerful point this morning about that. about deterring effects. i think the numbers are misleading. you are looking at a heavily regulated system and non-regulated system. one of the things about that debate obscures is i would be really concerned, actually, if the covered jurisdictions had more section two cases with the regulatory regime in place that is shielding and blocking all sorts of stuff. i think in some ways if it continued thethere. so i think in some ways if the -- to continue to look at 1965, it would be crazy to stick with that system. it wouldn't be doing a good job of a accomplishing the purposes. i think we agree on -- so i'll stop there. >> first, it was the situation in 1965 that authorized this. the court at that time recognized it as an extreme temporary remedy. i don't think anybody here is of the opinion that the state of the south is as it was 1965. i don't think anybody would argue that it's the same as in 2012. so the first point would be -- the remedy that section 5 is is not justified by the current times despite the existence of some discrimination. but more importantly i think what the state of the south today and that so many black elected officials are present in the south is that the discrimination that would need to occur to disenfranchise blacks would have to be done by the black elected officials themselves. and it would have to be done on the backs of -- with legal organizations like maldeath and others out there fighting for the rights of minorities on a regular basis. i don't see that the deterrence effect being covered today is justified given the state of race relation in the south today. >> the thing that -- that's puzzled me for a long time is the sort of question of what should decide when section five's usefulness is outgrown and what it is that makes section five such an extreme remedy? as i understand the argument that people who think section 5 is such an extreme remedy, the state can't put the plan into effect until it gets precleared. as you quoted you have to go to washington with a hat in theira. is the problem that somehow federalism says jurisdiction should be put into -- put the burden on voters who have been denied the right to vote to come forward? i never figured out if it's the burden of the proof or the timing issue that leads people to think that section 5 is an extraordinary remedy. i'm still trying to figure out about the preclearance regime. i understood the extraordinary -- what the supreme court thought was extraordinary in 1965 was that the federal government was chopping out literacy tests without any proof that there was anything wrong with a particular test. i never understand how that got translated into section 5 preclearance regime being extreme. i wonder if the panelists think that why's that so extreme, because that goes to burden of proof and timing in most cases. in most cases where there's an objection, presumably a plaintiff would be able to challenge and section 5 has changed the timing and burden of proof. it hasn't changed the ultimate outcome nearly as much as if we got rid of section 5 as it would assume. what is it about section 5 that seems to drive the supreme court justices into the denial? >> it's the presumption which think you're bad until you show us. one of the things i would hope to pull out of this is the notion that there's actually value in that for the jurisdictions, that the regime almost in a constitutional sense provides a framework for which they don't have to take certain responsibility and can go forward and press their claims. >> i wanted to mention that i thought it was an interesting dynamic in the most recent supreme court appeal that we did, at first i had the sense that the supreme court was a little indignant that the texas court had drawn interim plans that departed from the legislatively enacted plans. and especially because texas was presented this as a really dramatic departure what had been enacted even if that wasn't true on the facts. but when we got to the day of argument, i sensed a very different dynamic among the justices and it seemed that maybe by the time the briefing was done they might have been realizing that there were some pretty serious things wrong with the texas plans. and when chief justice roberts said to the texas request put in the legislative plans we'll just sort it all out later, that chief justice roberts took the initiative to say these plans are not precleared. we need to get some kind of feedback here on preclearance. i had the sense that maybe there was an implicit recognition that the shifting of the burden of proof was important for the reasons we had inro qstion that think comes out of joshua's comments maybe to you, nina, which is joshua's point is we would not design section 5 the way it was designed if we were designing it today. i don't think anybody would design a parallel legislation in two district courts with supreme court stepping in. if you were designing section 5 or trying to design a regime today to protect the interest of latino voters, how would it differ from the regime that we have in place? >> well, you know, i think the problem was that texas took this thing off the rails, because that would have moved much faster. since the doj isn't taking a position, the doj -- i mean, texas probably could have gone to the senate plan precleared right away. i think they would have a much better sense on clarity on what may or may not have been objectionable in the other two plans. they rejected the idea of going to trial in november, which would have given us a decision that would have avoided this kind of crash and burn that we had in december. but even though the district court in the district of columbia was saying, you know, you could not file the summary motion, the texas said, no, no, we want to find the summary motion. i'm not sure if there's anything wrong with the structure or a series of catastrophic decisions by the legal team representing texas that caused this crisis. some people suggested they wanted to case the crisis so they could go to the supreme court to say take our plans, please. >> but that seemed to me to be the gamble they were making and in fact the gamble in their brief which is put our plan into effect even though it's not precleared -- >> which is saying declare it unconstitutional. >> that didn't work either. i was thrilled because that said texas could not put the plans into effect. in this war of attrition where we're in this court and we're in that court, every day the texas plans are not implemented is a day of victory for me. >> like every day with orange juice is -- >> exactly. sunshine today because we're not voting under the texas plans. >> i think this is also one of the unintended consequences of the voting right acts in the initial understanding section 5 was intended and joshua makes this a little bit, to freeze into effect the existing subject so states can't make it worse. the history from 1865 to 1965, the state would come up with a new wonderful way of making it happen and as the supreme court recognizes it in the perry against perez case, you can't do that in redirecting. that is the existing plan is rendered unconstitutional when the census plans are dropped. you have a system in which you now have -- not the one party system of the south in 1

opponents say government should stay out of american's private lives and the mandate is unconstitution unconstitutionalcision will come down sometime in june. >>> in anticipation of the supreme court case, tea party activist rallied at the capital yesterday calling for the health care law to be overturned. former presidential candidate, herman cain, attended the valley as well as attorney general, who was very out spoken of the health care over law filing a lawsuit after the law became official. >>> pope benedict is pushing a message of peace after he reaches out to mexico, a country torn apart recently by drug violence. the pope told the crowd of 4,000 kid and their parents that they are each a gift of god from mexico and to the world. the large crowd packed the plaza hours before the pope's appearance chanting his name. today is the final day for the pope in mexico before traveling to cuba tomorrow. catholics in cuba are awaiting the pope's arrival. the relationship between both sides have shown signs of improvement over the past few years. the relationship was severely strained when many catholics i

unconstitutional and the court will find it unconstitutional. my thesis is not the section five of the voting rights act must be or was always unconstitutional. it is as constituted unconstitutional. section five was the remedial powers and requires covered states in the south to achieve pre-clearance as originally

unconstitutional, then tomorrow somebody can come in and attack social security for the same reason, and that would be unconstitutional, or people like myself who buy insurance but also have to pay medicare, we could say, well, medicare is unconstitutional because why should i have to pay for that when i'm also paying for private insurance? you can go through all of these examples, that this is unconstitutional, the argument can be made that all the rest of them are unconstitutional. i don't think that that's what the american public wants. i'm not sure that that is the kind of issue the supreme court wants to unleash on americans. chairman of the health committee who s instrumental in developing a good part of this law. >> well, it's clear after the supreme court listening to the arguments that the opponents of the he raffordable care act, ar their arguments on politics rather than precedence.whats best for the american people. senator leahy is right. congress have tried to fulfill ob general welfare, there have been those who have tried it by going to the supreme court. they tried to undercut social security. they tried to undercut the t, t rights act, you name it, there's always been a group out there that tried to undercut what we i

unconstitutional and the court will find it unconstitutional. my thesis is not the section five of the voting rights act must be or was always unconstitutional. it is as constituted unconstitutional. section five was the remedial powers and requires covered states in the south to achieve pre-clearance as originally understood. it must be con grew end proportional. in northwest austin. latest shall be a county case agreed that it must be proportional. section five must be a proportional remedy to achieving the franchise for minorities. when section five was passed in 1965, we were 100 years after the 15th amendment. we were in a extreme state of discrimination. a mayoral candidate asked white voters to shoot in their tracks any african-american voters. alabama was 19% registration rate. white voting in these states was well over 50% higher. how did these states achieve rampant diseven francement of blacks? the voting rights act outlawed. it was a continuous effort by the south over 100 years to change and amend the voting practices to disfranchise african-american voters. these literacy tests would ask things. the examples are how many bubbles

. >>> a federal judge ruled maryland's hand fun permit law is unconstitutional -- handgun law unconstitutional. the judge said it needed to show a good and substantial reason to carry a handgun infringes the second amendment right to bear arms and the judge says the maryland law is not specifically tailored to the state's public safety interest. >>> an appeals court denied requests by loughner to end his forced medication. loughner is the suspect in the deadly shooting rampage in tucson, arizona. today's ruling allows authorities to keep giving loughner drugs all aimed at making him psychologically fit to stand trial. >>> a teenager wounded in last week's ohio shooting has been transferred to a rehab unit. 17-year-old nick wozzeck was wounded in the neck, arm and back. a second teen-ager was released and a third was nicked in appear ear. three other students were -- an ear. three other students were killed. >>> breaking news we've followed all afternoon, a school bus accident in calvert county. it happened just before 4:00 along route 2 at pushaw station road. this video was uploaded to www.wu

president's affordable care act challenged by some states who say the individual mandate is unconstitution unconstitutionalered down in sanford, florida, where thousands and thousands of people rallied last night with the parents of trayvon martin to demand justice in this case and where the friends of george zimmerman and the sanford police department has started a smear campaign to try to destroy the reputation and the image of trayvon martin. and we've got it covered in south korea where president obama continues his visits there with the nuclear summit participation in that and bilateral meetings with a lot of the foreign leaders who are present. and he flies back tonight and because of the time change, i think figure it out. travels tomorrow but arrives tonight. i don't know how it is. but at any rate he will backe back in the white house late, late, late tonight. peter osborn and siprion bowling. >> are we on t.v. >> as of the last hour they might not let us. we are getting lots and lots of congratulations. it's really, really nice. this very nice note here, dear bill, i love your new morning show, w

unconstitutional, well, then couldn't you raise the same question about social security? that's a universal mandate. does that make social security unconstitutional, is medicare unconstitutional? i mean, these are some very serious political issues. the supreme court is going into. although this is the court that said a corporation is a person so we can elect general electric as president the same way we elected general eisenhower as president. >> i should point out general electric is still part owner, of course, of nbc and msnbc since you mention it. >> i can say some -- general motors then, how's that? >> thanks very much, just a disclaimer. thank you very much, pat leahy, important points about the cuban relationship. you know it so well. appreciate you being here. next, my trip to the hottest place in havana in a country where free speech has some limits, everyone is free to speak their mind about baseball at caliente corner. you're watching a special edition of "andrea mitchell reports" live from cuba. ok! who gets occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas or bloating? get ahead of it! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap a day helps defend against digestive issues wit

unconstitutional but social security, for example, or medicare is constitutional. if you say this is unconstitutional, then you've got to say social security and medicare are also unconstitutional. i'm not sure the court is prepared to do that. >> senator, what is the role of the senate in this right now? obviously it's in the court's hands? why even talk about it? >> well, you know, we -- we passed the law, and i think we have a real interest in seeing -- seeing what they do. i want to hear what the arguments are. i'm a member of the supreme court bar. i wanted to hear it in that capacity and as chairman of the senate judiciary committee just how they react. i picked this particular one, the argument on the constitutionality because it affects just about everything else we do in the judiciary committee and others. i wanted to hear how they react to it. >> senators, the president has been pretty silent about this law over the last couple of weeks. i'm wondering if you're satisfied, or should the president be doing more to defend it. >> i think the president probably felt if he was on the demilitarized zone between the two koreas might not be the best place to talk about health

unconstitutional then tomorrow somebody could come and attack social security for the same reason. that would be unconstitutional. or people like myself who buy insurance but also have to pay medicare, we could say well medicare is unconstitutional because why should i have to pay for that when i'm also paying for private insurance. you could go through all these examples. this is unconstitutional, the argument can be made all the rest are unconstitutional. i don't think that's what the american public wants. i'm not sure that that is the kind of issue the supreme court want to unleash on americans. >> senator harkin who's chairman of the health committee who was instrumental in writing a good part of this law. >> it's clear after spending two hours in the supreme court listening to the arguments, that the opponents of the health reform act -- >> that was a little bit of the democratic senators from about noon today talking about what was going on in the supreme court and their views on health care laws. we want to continue to take your calls for a few minutes. now the court will be releasing the transcripts in just the next few minutes. we will get those ready and get those on the air for you. they will always when available in

unconstitutional is the entire law dead? >> that's up to the supreme court. of the judges that declared the law unconstitutional and there have been a handful of them, most of them, except for one, have said only the mandate is unconstitutionalne june, a trial court judge in pensacola said as a result of the mandate being unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional. >> the mandate is the glue for the whole reform. >> there are many other decisions not legally controversial. >> pre-existing, not allowing insurance companies to deny you coverage if you have a pre-exists condition. >> or requiring children to be allowed to stay on their parents' health care until age 26. that is not constitutionally controversial. there is one judge that threw out everything. if they throw out anything it will be -- >> how deep are the divisions in the court. >> there are four judges appointed by democrats, who are virtually certain to uphold the law. there is one judge thomas who will strike it down. can they get one more out of roberts, scalia, kennedy, alito. i think the odds are it will be upheld. those four justices are really going to hold the outcoin their hands. kennedy as usual the swing justice. >> i've been hearing so much ab

court decides an individual mandate is unconstitutional, what does it mean for the rest of the law? is the rest of it unconstitutional or account unconstitutional parts well, beselfered? all so simple, right? bottom line is the high court is likely to issue a decision some time in june, issuing not only a decision in president obama's marquee limb slaying but potentially refocus august political debate about health care right in the middle of the 2012 general election. some folks are saying if the slaw upheld, somehow good for republicans because they will rally conservatives or if it is overturn, good for democrats, rally liberals angry at the supreme court. i don't buy it the supreme court is still considered an arbiter here and the public will look at them, giving a stamp of approval or disapproval on the legality of the law and that that will matter more than people realize. >>> all right, protestors demanding an arrest in connection to the death of florida teenager trayvon martin and they are taking their outrage now to the state capital in tallahassee that march beginning in the next hour follows a 20,000-person rally in sanford last nigh

unconstitutional, what happens? is the entire law dead? >> that's up to the supreme court. of the judges that have declared the the law unconstitutional, and there have been a hand full of them, most of them, except for one, have said only the man date is unconstitutional. one judge, a trial court judge in pensacola said as a result of the mandate being unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional. >> the mandate is the glue for the whole reform, isn't it? >> it is. but there are many other positions that are not legally controversial. >> like a pre-existing -- not allowing the insurance companies to deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition? >> right. or requiring children to be allowed to the stay on their parent's health care until their age 26. that is not constitutionally controversial. those -- but there is that one judge who threw out everything. i think if they throw out anything, it will just be the individual mandate. >> how deep will the divisions be within in court on this? >> there are four justices appointed by democrats, ginsburg, breyer, sotomayor, there is one who is certain to strike it down. the we is, can the liberals get one more out of kennedy, scalia, and alito? but those four justices are really going to hold

if it is declared unconstitutional, then the decision will be made is the entire act unconstitutional? if it is declared unconstitutional, we will have chaos in the health care system. it will certainly have a huge impact on the campaign's and elections this november. >> how is it this debate is taking place in english -- how big is it that this debate is taking place in this election year? >> it is very significant. regardless of what the decision is, it will inspire those who do not like the president, who do not like the health care law to be more involved in the campaign. frankly, if it is declared unconstitutional, those who support the president and have long advocated for health-care reform will be outraged and especially inspired to get out and try to let progressives and democrats to congress. >> justice kennedy, everyone is looking at anthony kennedy. who could join the four liberal justice to uphold law, he said young, uninsured people affect the overall market by not paying into it and ultimately receiving care over the long term. >> entrance and health care world, both markets, the young person who is not i

statute is unconstitutional and why not just the individual mandate is unconstitutional because that's what was argued before the court yesterday, but also that the medicaid expanse is unconstitutional and that the invalidation of the mandate would cause it's entire statute to be struck down. that was the nature of the proceedings today. a great privilege to be able to present our case to the united states supreme court, obviously. a great privilege to argue and share the podium with the solicitor general of the united states, who did a terrific job. so this is all been something where we really feel like this is a process that started back in florida at the very beginning when this law was passed. it was challenged. we worked our way through the 11th circuit. the idea all along to get the opportunity to present our case to the supreme court of the united states, we've now had that opportunity. we're delighted to have had the opportunity and, of course, now, the case is under submission to the supreme court. >> any idea how justices -- >> all we have to go on is the questions that asked today. at the hearing at the morning and afternoon and yesterday, you can tell from the questions

unconstitutional. >> there is nothing unconstitutional about this. >> jimmy, whatever happened to limits to government? is there no balance, jimmy p.? >> listen, if the supreme court throws out this mandate, it will be for that exact reason. this mandate, constitutional, there are no limits to government. and that's what justices were trying to determine. they were given the solicitor general opportunity after opportunity to create some sort of limits on this power and it wasn't able to do it. listen, i think at the end of the day, they will end up upholding the mandate. they will create their own limits in the opinion. but i think that's the key issue. >> hang on one second, my friend. i have to skip to a different topic. from domestic to foreign policy. president obama didn't intend for the world to hear him tell russian president demity trim ii medvedev that they would have more flexible. but he knew his mike on when he made light of the flap. >> first of all, mike is on? look, what i said yesterday is i think something that everybody in this room understand. >> all right. my quick two cents. you k

unconstitutional, does that mean the entire law is en in the afternoon they'll hear arguments whether the expansion of medicaid under the health care law is an unconstitutional intrusion on states? you can see the full schedule there on your screen. back to the supreme court. we want to continue to show what it's like outside that building right across the street from the u.s. capitol. while we take your calls and sean in claremont, florida, you're on c-span. what are your thoughts xwa. >> i'm so happy i was able to get in. this is my first time calling. i voted for -- in 2008, i ended up voting for president obama. not only did i vote for him, i went around and campaigned for him, signed up registered voters for him, and i'm so disappointed. especially everybody talks about how a number of the republicans, this mandate 20 years ago. well, president obama in the primy against a mandate. you know, against hillary clinton's plan, because he said, well what are you going to do? force people to buy insurance? i'm so disappointed that, you know, instead of trying to figure out something where he could probably get us on to medicare buy in. he ended up mandate. how is it that nobody's asking, how much is this going to -- why don't they give an example of how much this is actually going to cost a person to let people know that it's going to be ay fordable? like, for instance, citizen y is 46 years old. the insurance is going to cost $100 or so a month for the premium. why aren't they doing this. how much of a subsidy is citizen y going to end up getting? all they can do is say from the very beginning if you're under 26 you'll be covered under your parents' health insurance. you can't be you know, turned down for presifting conditions and that's all they sended up doing to sell it. so there's a lot of confusion out there, about how much is this really going to cost? i have an aging parent that's elder -- a senior citizen, and, you know, she's been healthy upping in 2011, and you know she was diagnosed with p.a.d. peripheral artery disease and had a number of procedures. >> sean, we have to wrap this up here. go ahead and make your concluding statement, if you wou would. >> caller: yeah. i'm really not for this mandate. >> we got the point. sean from claremont, florida. across the street from the supreme court on the capitol law, the republicans are olding -- republican senators are holding a press conference. so you a little of this. there's senator jon corn 9:0zin. >> reporter: a board of bureaucrats will decide whether your medical care is worth it, or whether the federal government will simply choose not to pay for it because of the cost analysis of the bureaucrats, it simply isn't worth it. i turn it over to senator hutchison at this point. >> well, thank you. you know, i think that we've seen these early arguments. yesterday especially, where we were arguing, is it a tax or a mandate? and i thought justice roberts certainly said, well, of course, we all know if it's a tax, that that makes congress have the capability to do it. but he basically said, if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. which means it's a mandate. it is an unconstitutional mandate that will make this whole law unconstitutional. and i think that when you look at what it's doing, it's telling every business in america that they have to sub describe to a government-run health care plan, or they can't offer the premiums. it's -- it is a mandate that is unsustainable in the constitution, and i think the justices are beginning to get enough information that we hope they will come to the right decision. there's no question that two-thirds of the american people believe this is an encroachment on their freedom, and i hope that we can change it some day by law. but i hope we can start all over and have a good health plan for more access by americans to an insurance that they can afford and that they want. now, i'll turn it over to senator mark o. rubio from florida. >> thank you tore the opportunity to talk to you for a few minutes. first of all i'm proud that florida took the lead on challenging the constitutionality of this law and hopeful the supreme court wi

unconstitutional and the fact of that being unconstitutional does not mean the invalidation of any other provisions. so under the position i'm advocating, there would no longer be challenges to the remaining part of the act. >> but if the challenge is what we're questioned today, whether if you're an insurance company and you don't believe that you can -- can give the coverage in the way congress mandated it, without the individual mandate, what type of action do you bring in the court? >> if the court follows the course that i'm advocating, you do not bring an action in the court. you go to congress, and you seek a change from congress to say the minimum coverage provision has been struck down by the court. here is -- here's the information that we have to show you what the risks are going to be. here are the adjustments you need to make. one of the questions earlier pointed out that states have adjusted their systems as they've gone along. as they've seen things work or not work. you know, i was talking earlier about the -- the different ratio for ages in insurance and states intended to change that, because they found having too narrow a band worked against the effectiveness of their program, but they -- except for massachusetts. they didn't enact mandates. so to answer -- i think to answer your question directly, mr. 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 deference that we're showing to congress. it seems to me, it puts congress in this position. this act is still in full effect. there is going to be this deficit that used to be made up by the mandatory coverage provision. all of that money has to come from somewhere. you can't repeal the rest of the act, because you're not going to get 60 votes in the senate to repeal the rest. it's not a matter of enacting a new -- you've got to get 60 votes to repeal it. so the rest of the act is going to be law. so you just put to the choice of, i guess, bankrupting insurance companies and the whole system comes tumbling down, or else enacting a federal subsidy program to the insurance companies which is what the insurance companies would like, i'm sure. do you really think that is somehow showing deference to congress and respecting the democratic process? it seems to me it's a gross distortion o

unconstitutional, then you say social security and medicare are also unconstitutional. i'm not sure the court's prepared to do that. >> the high court is very unlikely to declare social security and medicare unconstitutional but it is wrestling with what will be a landmark case and its decision will draw the court in to the central political debate of our time. the role, the reach, the power of the federal government. >> and that is what is at stake, our freedom. will isn't about health care. it's about freedom. >> democrats of course see it differently. universal access has been a democratic rallying cry for decades. >> it is morally right, it's what this nation is all about. >> now protecting the law is the left's primary focus. >> we love obama care! we love obama care! we love obama care! >> tonight's truth won't satisfy either side. the hay court's decision will settle the constitutional questions around this one very important health care you law. but the court won't settle the role of government debate. hardly. that job rightfully falls on you, the voters. your verdict in 2008 was pretty clear. so was your verdict in 2010. both were decisive election plan dates. they just happened to be in direct c

unconstitutional. i believe the court will find it unconstitutional. and one more thing i'll tell you about it, we can't afford trillions of dollars of new federal spending. >> barack obama has to be defeated, otherwise this bill will be implemented. if it's implemented, it's going to take our freedom away, it's going to destroy the economy of this country, it's going to raise unemployment rates, it's going to balloon the size of the government and dramatically increase our deficit. >> if the court holds to the strict ruling and they decide the mandate is unconstitutionalh no severability clause that, would make the entire bill unconstitutional. that would truly be a historic decision. >> wow, a historic instead of an historic. i wouldn't have expected that from mr. gingrich. republican strategist leslie sanchez and tom joins us along with jeffrey toobin. sorry there. let me just ask you this, tom. i'm just wondering -- let me start with you, leslie, actually. if this is ruled unconstitutional, well, what are the republicans going to have to talk about? this is their number one drum? >> i think it's america's number one drum. the funny thing about the health care law is the more people know about it, the less they like it. this is something we're consistently when we look at the polls, something we've been testing for the last couple of years is that there is a strong belief that this not only increases costs, premiums, taxes, deficits, but reduces the quality of health care significantly. that is a serious political problem and you add that up, you're

in other words you cannot ask a court to declare a statute unconstitutional because you think it is unconstitutional. you have to have been harmed by it or have harm coming your way has to be clear. ordinarily the court decides when the case is timely, the legal phrase is "ripeness." in the case of paying taxes, congress has decided when it is timely for the court to hear a challenge to a tax and congress has said you want to challenge a tax, you pay it first and give us the money first and then you challenge whether we have the right to take it from you. this is a very small portion of this case. the big portion that most people are concerned about which you have articulated, is whether the congress can force you to buy health care insurance. but, one aspect of that, if you don't bay it the congress will extract money from you. question, is that extraction a penalty, or is that extraction a tax? if it is a tax, the 150-year-old statute which says you have to pay the tax before you can challenge it, may kick in but from the sentiment of the courtroom and listening to the oral argument it is very cle

unconstitutional. i believe it's unconstitutional and i hope that the supreme court finds that it is unconstitutional. se the most contentious issue is that individual mandate. requirement that all americans must buy some form of insurance. a lot of people say if that part of the law goes down, so does the rest of it. is that okay with you? should the whole law go away or just parts of it? >> i want the whole thing ripped out by the roots. i want it done with -- we don't need to overhaul our health care system. we need to overhaul our insurance system. you don't need to burn down the house to remodel the living room. there are free market solutions that could be put in place like purchase of insurance across state lines and getting rid of pre-existing condition clause and other things that can be put in place instead of government taking over our entire health care system. >> here's the thing, amy. if the individual mandate goes down, the pre-existing condition part of the law that requires insurance companies to pay for people with pre-existing or give insurance to people with pre-existing conditions,

this is unconstitutional -- if this is unconstitutional, the argument can be made that all of them are unconstitutional i'm not sure if that is what the american public wants. and i'm not sure if that is what the supreme court wants to unleash on americans. >> setzer mark, who was instrumental in writing of this law. >> it was clear after spending two hours listening to these arguments that the opponents are basing their arguments on politics rather than president -- precedents, on politics rather than what is best for the american people. senator leahy is right, every time we in the congress have tried to fulfill our obligation under the constitution to promote the general welfare, there have been those that have tried to undercut it by going to the supreme court. they tried to undercut social security, the voting rights act, a civil-rights act. you name it. they have tried to undercut what we in congress have done to promote the general welfare. the arguments i heard this morning were very clear, congress doesn't have the power to regulate commerce. virtually every person in this country will at some

unconstitutional. states are allowed to do a lot of things the federal government is not allowed to do. you cannot quite make the analogy that romneycare is unconstitutional if obamacare is unconstitutional principle, you are right. omneycare is a much beloved in massachusetts. host: here is the front page of "roll call" this morning showing rick santorum. he held a news conference on capitol hill to talk about this legislation, the health-care law, and he also said this is like romneycare, and taking a political stab at his opponent. we covered this news conference. if your interested in watching the whole thing, go to c- span.org. , do you want to add? guest: it is remarkable that something that was viewed as unconstitutional has been -- as constitutional and necessary has turned into something that is evil. something has happened in the last year's. host: isn't there an argument there from the right to say we do not want the government telling us we have to buy something that we do not want to have to buy? guest: there is certainly some merit of that. the government wants us to do a lot of things. they want us to be eligible for jury duty. we have to register for the draft. things lik

unconstitutional and the only question will be if they recognize there's -- if the court holds to the strict ruling and they decide the mandate is unconstitutional, with no severability clause, that would make the entire bill unconstitutional. that would truly be a historic decision. >> mr. speaker, as usual thanks very much for joining us. >> thank you. good to be with you. >> mitt romney is coming up next. i'll ask the republican front-runner to react to some of the criticism from newt gingrich. and we'll look at the president's caught on camera moment, lot to discuss with mitt romney. also i'll go one-on-one later with rick santorum, is he losing his cool right now, i'll ask him about cursing at a reporter, if he plans to apologize. we also have rare audio from the supreme court, history making news yesterday today and tomorrow as the supreme court takes up the president's health care law. ok, guys-- what's next ? chocolate lemonade ? susie's lemonade... the movie. or... we make it pink ! with these 4g lte tablets, you can do business at lightning-fast speeds. we'll take all the strawberries, dave. you got it, kid. we have a winner. we're definitely gonna need another one. small businesses that want to grow use 4g lte t

unconstitutional, i believe the court will find it unconstitutional and one more thing i'll tell you about it, we can't afford trillions of dollars of new federal spending. it's a power grab by the federal government, it violate the tenth amendment, it violates the economic principles of economic freedom in this country. it's wrong. it needs to be repealed. >> why is it okay for states to have health insurance mandates but not the federal government? >> well, first of all, it's a matter of constitutional direction. states have the power to provide mandates if they wish to do so, the federal government does not. but, number two, we're talking about trillions of dollars of federal spending and we can't afford more federal spending. in the case of my state, there was no new tax that was required. in the case of baulcare, he's put in place $500 billion in new taxes, $500 billion of medicare cuts. and then he is planning on stepping in and telling people what kind of insurance they have to have. ultimately i believe he's going to be telling people what kind of treatment they can receive. it's a bad piece of legislation. the american people know it. that's why we're going to repeal it. >> the president's senior adviser was on television yesterday and said you, mitt romney, you're the godfather of the president's health care plan. you want to respond? >> i think we said he's the rumplestillskin of the campaign. he's trying to turn straw into gold. it's not going to work for them. as someone who knows about health care and cares about the american people having health insurance that the way they went about it with their 2,700 page bill and trillions of dollars in new spending is absolutely wrong. the wrong course is for the federal government to take over health care from the states, from the physicians and from the people of america. >> rick santorum isn't limiting his tough attacks to mitt romney. he's also going after president obama. i spoke with santorum this week about his campaign strategy. let's talk about the president of the united states. you used some pretty harsh rhetoric in going after him. i'll play a little clip of something you've said repeatedly. listen to this. >> i'm asking each and every one of you to act over the next 24 hours as if your freedom is at stake, because it is. >> your freedom is at stake, that makes it sound as if there's going to be a tote tallian regime here. >> the freer dom is at stake. will you buy what the government tells you to bite bye. a private citizen on the condition of living in america is going to be forced to do something that never before governor has imposed upon. and as we've seen with these regulations, even if it violates your deeply held religious convictions, the federal government will force to you do something that violates the teachings and tenets of your faith, economic freedoms, religious freedoms being taken away by a government who believes they know better how to -- >> you have a brand new web ad that paints an apocalyptic image of what could happen if president obama is re-elected. i'll play a little clip from that. >> imagine a small american town two years from now if obama is re-elected. small businesses are struggling and families are worried about their jobs and their future. >> just to be fair to the president of the united states, when he took office, the country was near a recession, a great recession, losing 700,000 jobs a month. now over the past few months gaining 200,000 jobs a month. the stock market was around 7,000, something like that. now it's over 13,000. it doesn't look like -- and the economic indicators are moving in the right direction as opposed to the wrong direction. >> well, first off, this has been the most anemic recovery in the history of our country. >> but it's been a recovery. >> it's anemic and rates that are not sustainable to increasing jobs. this president has exploded the credit card, $5 trillion added to the national debt. that's going to come a cropper at some point for the american people. we'll either do it by having huge amounts of debt payments we're going to have to pay which will further balloon the deficit or huge tax increase, his energy policy is driving up -- >> but in terms of the right track, wrong track, the country was clearly on the wrong track in 2008. >> three and a half years, wolf, and we're still talking about a p pathetic economy. >> but a lot of workers, auto workers have jobs now because of the president -- >> for almost four years this president has governed an economy that is suffering and struggling and blowing holes through our deficit. >> major endorsements in the republican race for the white house but will they help mitt romney seal the deal in the coming days? also, starbucks' secret ingredient. you may not want to know what's in one rather popular drink. stay with us here in the situation room. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] with 50 horsepower, dual overhead cams and fierce acceleration, the gator xuv 825i will shatter your expectations. ♪ and so no one gets left behind, check out our affordable xuv 550s at johndeere.com/gator. ♪ >>> the republican presidential candidates are gearing up for the next big primary showdown this coming tuesday. certainly health care on their radar, new endorsements in the mix as well. let's bring in gloria borger and ron brownstein. assuming the supreme court rules the mandates unconstitutionalhow does that play out looking into november? >> it's very hard to say at this point, wolf, because there's lots of ways the courts could rule. could you say the mandates are unconstitutional. you could keep other parts of the law which people like, for example, requiring that insurance companies keep your preexisting conditions covered. and that would be a very different political impact than in you threw the whole thing out. to me the democrats could then rally their base, it would be a blow to barack obama, no doubt about it, huge embarrassment. democrats could rally their base. and by the way, then, republicans would be forced to come up with a plan for health insurance, which they haven't done. >> i completely agree. i think if they do throw out the mandate, it would have the effect of probably rallying both parties' bases. >> james carville says it would be great for the democrats. >> you'd have five republican appointed justices outvoting four democratically appointed justices t

unconstitutional. now, it could be that he was just speculating about the possibility of voting that unconstitutional, but it sure seemed to me he had made up his mind that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, and i think given his place on the court, that is a very bad sign for its survival. he did not commit himself one way or the other. at times, sounded like if that part of the law was unconstitutional, the whole thing had to go. justice scalia, clearly explicitly said, and you'll hear this when you get the tape, he said, when we declare the individual mandate unconstitutional, the whole law has to go. >> we the sound. let me just interrupt you there. here's justice scalia talking to the government's attorney. take a listen. >> to say that we're affect yating the intent of congress is just unrealistic. once you cut the guts out of it, who knows. who knows what we're really desired by on their own and which one weren't. >> the question for the court is congress having passed the law, by whatever majority there might be in one house or the other, congress having passed the law, what at this point is the legislative intent em booed died in the law congress maz actually passed. >> that's r

unconstitutional? would requiring buying a car insurance be unconstitutional? is there a federal law requiring hospitals to treat indigents? is there a federal law? guest: i will start. certainly, it is in disputed that this was originally a conservative idea. it came out of the heritage foundation. a came as a response to hillarycare. there was a response that if we're going to have this socialized medicine system, let's have a republican alternative that is market-based that asks people to buy insurance. the genesis of this idea was conservative. i think it is also true that people like chuck grassley, who used to say this is a great idea, this anti-free-rider idea. hospitals are not allowed to turn you away. you really are subsidizing the uninsured. that was the idea. now senator grassley's response is that it is unconstitutional. states are allowed to do a lot of things the federal government is not allowed to do. you cannot quite make the analogy that romneycare is unconstitutional if obamacare is unconstitutional. in principle, you are right. romneycare is a much beloved in massachusetts. host: here is the front page of "roll call" this morning showing rick santorum. he held a news conference on capitol hill to talk about this legislation, the health-care law, and he also said this is like romneycare, and taking a political stab at his opponent. we covered this news conference. if your interested in watching the whole thing, go to c- span.org. tony mauro, do you want to add? guest: it is remarkable that something that was viewed as constitutional and necessary has turned into something that is evil. something has happened in the last years. host: isn't there an argument there from the right to say we do not want the government telling us we have to buy something that we do not want to have to buy? guest: th

unconstitutional. >> you were the first to point out its unconstitutional? he was the first one to cosponsor the mandate back in 1993. i did a segment on that earlier. and point of fact, is orrin hatch lying about it? he's calling it unconstitutionald it. you know what they found out? quote, it's totally true because they did sponsor it. it was the republican idea, and this is how it works. president obama agrees with the republicans and the republicans move further right and then accuse him of polarizing the country. you see how that game is played. in fact, professor pool broke this down as well. i want to go back here. he shows first of all the most partisan republicans, the once who are 90% republicans and most partisan democrats from the beginning of the country to present day. you see the democrats are fairly constant. they're not moving in one direction so much. from 1980-on the republicans take off in partisan issues. they become much more partisan. you see an obvious divide. now when you add in the guys who are the more moderate ones. the ones who are 10% republican and 10% democrat, it's not a perfect way of explaining it. buttedbut add those guys in, let's go to the next graphic here, the democrats, they cross the midli