You're watching...
Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center argues the individual mandate is constitutional.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Supreme Court arguments.
Well today the Supreme Court heard argument -- you just heard on whether or not the individual mandate the requirement that virtually all Americans -- buy health insurance or pay a penalty is constitutional.
Got Kendall says it is he is founder president of the constitutional accountability center.
Thanks so much for joining us let's back -- -- -- and and tell me what you heard inside the court today was there anything that surprised you.
Well I think -- the most important point was that the arguments of its founders just really wore -- over the course of the argument I think.
At beginning of the argument there were a lot of questions.
Towards the United States about whether or not this is constitution whether it was unprecedented.
I think by the end of the two hours you heard even some of the conservative justices expressed real doubts about.
The State's claim here whether there was any there there and I think.
I think that's really where the argument ended which is and how thin the State's challenge to this law lots.
Obviously come down on the side of thinking that it is constitutional how -- Well we actually represent more than 500 state legislators from every state in the country.
And the point of the briefcase that state even state legislators the people who are supposed to be challenging this law recognizes that.
You can't solve a national problem with the healthcare crisis without the federal government involved in what what the government is doing here which is -- And forcing people to pay a penalty if they don't get insurance it's totally reasonable given.
The fifty billion dollars or so and unpaid costs that we the taxpayers bear.
For people who go without insurance and so.
It's essential part of a regulation.
Interstate commerce and that's exactly what the constitution with the framers were trying to.
Give the federal government the power to do and that's what our state clients are saying in this case so what do you think is if -- as strong as part of the challenge against the legislation.
Well I think that what those states have done pretty successfully at least in the court of public opinion.
Is make the point that this is somehow an unprecedented.
Value -- the federal government our -- and I think what I.
From a -- -- from a legal point of you're not public opinion -- from a legal point of you do you think what is the biggest challenge this law the most ballot.
Well so the challenge it was heard today which I think everybody thinks is the most serious challenge the one that lower court judges.
Have accepted is a challenge under the commerce clause and whether the minimum coverage provision survives under that and I think.
By the end of the day today there were even some of the conservative justices suggesting that it was constitutional.
So what do you obviously you think the outcome if that this lot's gonna stand.
But yet you never know based on oral argument -- though he's an inexact science you'd never know if people are playing devil's advocate.
But by the end of the hearing I was I thought there were even some of the conservatives.
Chief Justice Roberts Justice Kennedy who who had real doubts about whether they could rule for the states.
Okay it's always hard to read and tell you know for sure but thanks for putting your two cents -- -- -- that we --
