that was the point that judge vinson said yesterday. it has a bootstrapping affect. the more the federal government encroaches on markets and local areas, it gives them greater power under the commerce clause again all these people who are so-called free riders come off because of the subsidy issue. it literally builds on itself such that the distinction between local and national is quite literally obliterated. >> first, as to the point about the end of federalism. whether it would be the end of federalism, it would be the punctual end of the in numerous -- the enumerated powers scheme which is one of the central features of federalism. it's not only states having an affair rights and powers but congress having limited and enumerated powers. if after this there is no just -- no limit on congress's powers, then that part of the kind to small scheme is gone. and the supreme court has said that as an essential part. in the ruling will lead to that outcome cannot be the correct ruling. it is a reduction 0 at certain -- ad absurdum. professor fried has conceded the basic

district judge roger vinson. he found congress overstepped its authority by mandating that people purchase insurance by 2014 or pay a fine. south carolina's jim demint: >> we must repeal the bill in its entirety, because at the very heart, which makes all the other parts work, that very heart-- that individual mandate- - violates the highest law of our land. >> suarez: vinson was the second federal judge to rule that a mandate was unconstitutional, but he went further and concluded the entire law was invalid. in his 78-page opinion, vinson wrote, "the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit." two other federal judges have upheld the mandate and the broader law. the question of constitutionality also took center stage at a senate judiciary hearing today. part of the discussion focused on the constitution's commerce clause which gives congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states. the law's supporters s

judge vinson considered almost not at all. in fact he said as i recall, i can consider -- i assume that i can consider constitutionality instead of i presume that is constitutional. i want to direct this question to you, general kroger, aren't you troubled by the lack of weight given to this presumptions, which is so fundamental to the work that you and other attorneys general and the attorney general of the united states does come a day in and day out, in defending statutes against constitutional party. >> senator i was simply agree with you that this is extraordinarily important. likewise, the preference that is shown to the democratically elected congress to craft the right policy. of those could use greater emphasis and the decisions going forward. >> would you agree that one of the reasons that this presumption should have stronger and special weight in this case is that in fact the united states congress has centrally he pointed out earlier considered these constitutional issues in deliberating in debating this law? it i

every one of the 78 pages of the vinson decision. so i will say that i share the goal of getting exactly where you are. i know that i can't speak for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here, but i know that i speak for all of my colleagues here when i tell you that we do, and i want to get there. we know that we are now five or six weeks into this congress, and i believe that personally, that we need to proceed with as open an amendment process as possible. i respect your desire and willingness to continue to work with us so that we can get to exactly where we want to be as we proceed. mr. sessions? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. king, welcome to the rules committee, again. as the facts you have been a regular visitor to rules committee and bring thoughtful ideas not only to the committee, but with a thoughtful ak tir yi -- articulation of what is behind your ideas. as you know this committee has the awesome responsibility of looking after and shepherd through including proposals crafted by the rules committee from hearing

you see, according to judge vinson's ruling, the entire health care law is unconstitutional because it is predicated upon the individual mandate. president obama has argued that, members have argued that on the floor, and now there's this attempt to extricate from that argument, and it just won't work. the law will continue to be debated in other courtrooms, but i believe we are looking forward to a day when the supreme court of the united states says to congress, you went too far. you went beyond the constitution of this great nation. however, the health care law is flawed even beyond this congressional overreach, this unprecedented congressional overreach. the health care law double-counts dollars, threatens the health care infrastructure of this great nation, and adds more individuals to a system that i'm very familiar with as a former governor -- the broken medicaid system. there isn't a governor in america that would come before any hearing of congress and argue that the medicaid system is anything but broken. this bill is also paid for by over $500 billion in tax increases and ov

every one of the 78 pages of the vinson decision. so i will say that i share the goal of getting exactly where you are. i know that i can't speak for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here, but i know that i speak for all of my colleagues here when i tell you that we do, and i want to get there. we know that we are now five or six weeks into this congress, and i believe that personally, that we need to proceed with as open an amendment process as possible. i respect your desire and willingness to continue to work with us so that we can get to exactly where we want to be as we proceed. mr. sessions? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. king, welcome to the rules committee, again. as the facts you have been a regular visitor to rules committee and bring thoughtful ideas not only to the committee, but with a thoughtful ak tir yi -- articulation of what is behind your ideas. as you know this committee has the awesome responsibility of looking after and shepherd through including proposals crafted by the rules committee from hearing

. >> judge vinson said an injunction is not necessary on the decision because longstanding presumptions that the official of the executive branch will adhere to the loss by the court. in this case, is the administration adhering to the law? >> again, there are many courts that have heard many cases on this. 12 have dismissed the case. two have -- more than 12, i'm sure, have dismissed the case. two have ruled in our favor as to its constitutionality. two have ruled against us. implementation of the health care bill rightly continues to move the roll -- they roll on its constitutionality. i point to you, you saw just late last week the state of wisconsin, despite the attorney in the's participation in the's participation lawsuit in state of wisconsin announced implementation moves forward. i would point out one of the state houses in the commonwealth of virginia passed by a vote of 95-3 to begin to set up health- care exchanges. i think that is pretty clear indications the implementation of this import law move forward. >> did the administration get in touch with any republicans [inaudi

that was the point the judge vinson made yesterday. it has a very perverse boostp straping of fact reported gives them a greater power under the commerce clause. it literally builds on itself such that the distinction between local and national is quite literally obliterated. >> professor barnett? >> whether or not it would be the end of federalism, it would be the functional and of the enumerated powers scheme that is one of the central features of federalism. it is based on states having independent rights or powers but also based on congress having limited and enumerated powers. there is no judicious limit on power. the supreme court has said that is an essential part to any religion that would lead to that outcome. that cannot be a correct ruling. the only other point i would make is that i think professor fried has conceded the basic claim that congress can make you buy this, they can make you buy anything. you -- he hase not conceded that they can make you eat anything you buy. they can make you buy a gym membership that they can

that was the point that judge vinson said yesterday. it has a bootstrapping affect. the more the federal government encroaches on markets and local areas, it gives them greater power under the commerce clause again all these people who are so-called free riders come off because of the subsidy issue. ititerally builds on itself such that the distinction between local and national is quite literally obliterated. >> first, as to the point about the end of federalism. whether it would be the end of federalism, it would be the punctual end of the in numerous -- the enumerated powers scheme which is one of the central features of federalism. it's not only states having an affair rights and powers but congress having limited and enumerated powers. if after this there is no just -- no limit on congress's powers, then that part of the kind to small scheme is gone. and the supreme court has said that as an essential part. in the ruling will lead to that outcome cannot be the corct ruling. it is a reduction 0 at certain -- ad absurdum. professor fried has conceded the basic poi

if it did, judge vinson said congress could do almost anything it wanted and we would have a constitution in name only. supporters of the law say there is no true inactivity because nobody entirely stays out of the health care economy. the judge said everybody eats, but that doesn't mean the congress can order us to eat broccoli for our health. the ruling came in a lawsuit filed by 26 states, all but two with republican governors. the obama administration said it will appeal. this is the second time the judge found the law unconstitutional. two other judges upheld it. that tees up the issue for the supreme court, ann. >> thank you, pete. >>> also, the u.s. ambassador to china plans to leave his post in april. it is believed he will be a republican contender for president in 2012. >>> american hiker sarah shourd is being summoned to return to iran for trial next week. she was arrested with her fiance and friend while hiking the border with iraq. she was released on bail. the others are being held still. >>> already ravaged by floods, northern australia is bracing for what could be the most