so i'm now going to turn this over to elizabeth wydra. >> i'm elizabeth wydra, chief counsel at the constitutional accountability center and i represent more than 500 state legislatures from every state in the country, the district of columbia, and puerto rico, who support the affordable care act and strongly disagree with the 26 states that have challenged the constitutionality of the act. i was there in the court today, and i agree with my colleagues that i think that the court will likely not punt the issue by applying the anti-injunction act and instead will get to the merits of the case, and so the real show, the real controversy and discussion will begin tomorrow when the court starts to listen to the merits of the case and in particular whether or not the minimum coverage provision, or the so-called individual mandate, is constitutional. and the state legislators who i represent say that it is constitutional, that it's good for the states, that it's good for the states' citizens, and they are eager for the court to get to a decision on the merits, upholding the constitutionality of thefo th

my name is jim, no affiliation, and this question is directed to miss wydra. you mentioned a bill of rights as a restraint on the commerce clause. congress first sat under the constitution in march of 1789. the bill of rights was ratified on december 15th, 1791. are you saying that between nose two dates, it would have been proper for congress to authorize searches and seizures under the commerce clause? >> no. i mean, that was -- the fourth amendment was simply an example i gave. the rest of the constitution, in addition to the amendments to it, also serve as a limit on the exercise of any of the other provisions in the constitution. you know, you have things -- so for the necessary and proper clause, it says "proper." that means several things. it has to be a properly enacted law, according to the ways that the constitution sets out for legislation to be passed, you know, by both houses of congress, et cetera, et cetera. and it also means proper in terms of not violating any other provision of the constitution. that means both any amendments to the constitut

also a great pleasure to be debating my friend elizabeth wydra, someone with whom i've debated this issue on numerous occasions in the past, and someone with whom i co-authored and amicus brief defending the original right to keep and bear arms begins the city of chicago, i think they are to be commended for that act of commitment to the original meaning of the actual constitution. today i'm charged with giving you a briefing, an overview of the lawsuit you will hear next week. a lawsuit that as elia told you will consume six hours of argument spread over three days. that is the longest argument time being aloted in 47 years. it no matter how this case is decided, no matter how the court comes out, there has already been one claim that has been refuted by the fact the court granted six hours of the oral arguments spread over three days, that is the challenge to the constitutionality of the affordable care act and the individual mandate is frivolous. or an easy case. which you actually still hear in the media. even this week. i can just assure you that the supreme court does not have to de

great pleasure to be debating my friend elizabeth elizabeth wydra with a mile of debated many times and co-authored to the supreme court defending the individual right to keep and bear arms against the city of chicago which is the constitutional accountability center supported in filings that brief. they are to be commended for of that act of commitment to the or original meaning of the actual constitution. today i am charged with giving you a briefing an overview of the lawsuit you will hear next week, lawsuit that will consume six hours of arguments spread over three days. that is the longest argument time being allotted in 47 years. no matter how this case is decided, no matter how the court comes out there has already been one claim that has been definitively refuted by the fact the court granted six hours of oral argument spread over three days and that is a challenge to the constitutionality of the affordable care act and the individual mandate is somehow frivolous. or an easy case which you actually go -- still here in the media. i can assure you the supreme court does not dedica

and last but not least, we have elizabeth wydra, who is the chief counsel of the constitutional accountability center, which is a think tank law firm, an action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the constitution's text and history. she frequently participates, as do a lot of us in this business, in amicus briefs before the supreme court, and she's actually, unlike many of us, has argued several big cases in the federal courts of appeal. so without further ado, i'll turn it over the michael. and then we'll hear from some lawyers and we'll keep going. >> thank you, ilya, and thank you, roger, for putting this together, and thank you for reading that quote from "the washington post." it sounds like an impressive quote, but they were just quoting me saying that, so it's really less impressive when you know the full story. roger told me that i would have the honor of being the first person to present here in in cato's hayek auditorium. for everyone who follows me, the view from here is fantastic. let's jump into the individual mandate. last month a gallup poll found 72% of a

it's also a great pleasure to be debating my friend, elizabeth wydra, someone whom i've debated this issue on numerous occasions in the past and someone with who i co-authored an amicus brief to the right to bear arms in chicago which the center supported in filing that brief. i think they're to be commended for that act of commitment to the original meeting of the actual constitution. today i'm charged with giving you a briefing, an overview of the lawsuit that you're going to hear next week, a lawsuit that as ilya told you, is going to consume six hours after argument spread over three days. that's the longest argument time being allotted in 47 years. no matter how this case is decided, no matter how the court comes out, there's already been one claim that has been refuted by the fact that the court granted is six hours of oral argument over three days. that is the challenge to the affordable care act and the individual mandate is somehow frivolous or an easy case, which you actually still hear in the media, even this week. i can just assure you that the supreme court does not have