You're watching...
Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese on the impact the president’s health-care law will have on the 2012 election.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
-- mr.
-- thanks for -- shorting is that I saw where you were speaking out this past week about exactly this that this is.
Still government of by and for the people we have a chance to say how we feel about things in November is this going to be -- one issued this gonna turn the election.
I'm not sure it'll be the one issue because there's several other issues the failure of this administration.
The terrible economy.
The failure to follow that -- say that Ronald Reagan.
Followed in that 1980s where we had such a spectacular recovery and the difference in this recovery so they're going to be a lot of issues.
But there's no question about this unbelievable.
Extension of the power of the federal government which is represented by Obama care.
That it will be a serious issue I'm sure particularly since Chief Justice.
A Roberts said that that if the people want -- corrected the situation they've got to do it themselves that the polls.
-- he really did he gave as a -- today in all of that today at the same time.
The way this law was was crafted legislatively.
They had to use some parliamentary.
-- maneuvers to get it through.
And then you got the court saying OK it's you can't do this under the commerce but but you can't just attacked tourists seemed like this thing has been convoluted from a legal standpoint -- non -- It seems like it's been jury -- You're absolutely right there right from the start the essentially the bribery that was used to get certain senators to vote for it.
The fact that that no member of congress in either house had read the whole bill that there were all kinds of surprises -- have come out of -- -- The fact indeed that in order to make it constitutional or appear constitutional.
They court had to literally -- legitimately manipulate the constitution.
And to hold something that congress -- said it was not congress specifically took the taxation provisions out of the original draft of the bill.
To show that it was not a tax so the court in order to try to rescue the bill from constitutional.
Illegitimacy.
Made up this idea that it was in fact attacks.
What do you make of Justice Roberts.
Going with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court was it do.
Some say -- pair.
The political damage that was done to the court from a gore vs bush or was it because of the fact that there was something else going on that the court felt they didn't -- -- look political so he.
Kind of comported the bill of the opinion to get to worry got.
Well I don't know what his motivation was but it was certainly disappointing.
Because any time the court.
Departs from the clear word of the statute.
The clear meaning and intent of congress and then really -- what the constitution says any time that you have this kind of manipulation.
For whatever the the the reason.
And frankly trying to save the political.
Impressions.
Of -- Supreme Court.
Is not a legitimate basis for.
Making a finding that is actually contrary to that to the constitution -- -- -- no doubt in my mind.
Beat the I think that cigarette no doubt the -- comments do you think his comments about the the court prior to the ruling had an impact.
I don't know whether they did or not his comments were certainly out of place and and net -- as seriously wrong.
And so I would be again very disappointed if that was a motivation for what the Chief Justice did.
Talking to a lawyer friend of mine last night who is telling me.
He said well buddy -- if you read the opinion.
He said you judge Roberts did a couple things one -- your point about the fact that he basically said two was the people hey you wanna fix.
Things in this country remember to go vote the way you want to to -- but the other part was his business about the commerce clause that finally.
The Supreme Court has -- in this.
Commerce clause which has been broadly interpreted to over the years by courts but then I saw an article by Laurence Tribe the Harvard law professor.
Who sit back.
Will still do the commerce clause in the future no we won't pay any attention to what -- what the justice at what's your take on that.
Well is it Lawrence -- may be right it will be easier.
For a court to disregard what they said about the commerce clause in this case.
But because of the finding.
That it was attacks in doing so.
The holding.
Or the comment by the court that that -- that they commerce clause did not -- to cover this kind of of a mandate.
Really could be viewed by its subsequent court has merely -- that is it was not necessary for the decision in the case.
And therefore it could be ignored in the future so like it's not nearly as rosy.
An outcome as some people have been expressing.
Again it was I think a serious mistake a wrong decision and whatever the motivation is it's very disappointing that.
That there have been cases that the supreme courts have ruled on that later other courts supreme -- later have have ruled opposite down the road.
Is this one that won't go back to the court somehow some -- some way or is -- as you spoke about earlier this week.
This is really for a to -- to decide on November 6.
We'll leave the decision on November 6 is going to be very important to set in motion then the next step which is for congress itself.
To repeal.
This particular statute this tremendous power grab by the federal government and then to start over and get some decent health care legislation.
That the debt depends upon.
That the traditional doctor patient relationship rather than an all -- -- powerful a governmental takeover of the whole subject.
That's gonna take not only -- -- Mitt Romney that's also gonna take collecting 51 senators think that's going to happen.
Well it's entirely possible and I think this will be an issue certainly -- -- talked about as why we do need.
A eight senate that will infect their represent the will of the people in this particular subject.
Immigration was also the big story -- the other big decision that came out about Arizona.
You agree with the courts on the ruling regarding Arizona that other then police say asking for ID.
That the rest of what was really the business of the federal government.
Well I think that the general principle of the federal government's responsibility.
When -- might say that in recent that.
Years here they -- that not that really lived up to.
Was a proper holding on the other hand I think they probably went too far I don't think they had to.
Overrule.
The at least two out of the three sections that they did of the Arizona law since they were wholly compatible.
With the objectives of the of this federal statute.
-- the Justice Department though has now put out.
Of a line and 800 number for people to call it's almost like they're begging to say.
Come on give is another case to bring here so that we can go back about that issue of police asking for ID or your papers -- its call.
Yes it's it's very unfortunate apparently.
The law against illegal aliens coming into the country.
Is one that the current Justice Department is not very fund and like so many other things they just seem to be ignoring it or if anything they're going to some extent.
To undo what the law the requires.
