'Great anticipation' for GOP ahead of health care arguments

This transcript is automatically generated

Fox News -- right now opening arguments underway right now US Supreme Court health care hearings day one of three today.

And today as the Department of Health and Human Services vs the state of work.

Now that he probably PC screen left there is that you outside protesters of all stripes out there today.

On the beautiful -- in our nation's capital the Tea Party was opposed to a health care mandate from day one.

And so to Steve King the Iowa Republican and -- member of the Tea Party caucus with me now and good morning to you.

Good morning bill what what it is a great morning here what what it what day this is I mean what what is your sense.

Are you.

You have the opinion that's that that's rooted in confidence.

Or are some nerves that run through you today with what you're feeling.

I feel like we've been training for -- great big ball game when the weather's right and the fans are out there and the colors are.

Are showing on both sides of this and there's a great anticipation.

But I don't I can't like I can't predict the winner of this is this is that going to be a close call I think and it.

You know my -- my heart says that my brain tell me.

That it is not that hard to figure out from a constitutional perspective also it's just as hard news harder well.

Simply because of the of the individual mandate component of this I get right relies heavily on the commerce clause.

And the commerce clause in the constitution requires that there be an interstate commerce link.

And that gonna -- commerce link is pretty hard to make when you realize it in every state in every decade there have always been babies born.

Live sometimes a long full life and died without engaging in health care whatsoever let alone interstate commerce it has to do with health care.

-- -- mandate that everybody biased policy is that what is a huge reach and this is just to kind of government that the founding fathers wanted to limit.

And I don't know how the Supreme Court gets to this by some rationale for fighting are additional.

But let let me try and -- -- that a little bit here over the past 75 years I'm reading now believe this is.

Wall Street Journal what gets you a source in -- moment here over the past 75 years.

The court almost always has deferred to congress.

When it asserts the commerce clause Wall Street Journal yes just -- To commerce power meaning they allow congress to do what it once when -- law was in question as it applies to the commerce clause.

And and and what court observers argue is that the court has gone in favor what congress enacts his law.

And that has been the trend you see it that way yours is completely different from what we've observed the past seven happens.

Well I haven't tracked that trend case law by case -- so.

I can't really comment on on how that view of that trend might be.

But this is a whole -- zone a whole new territory.

And it goes into the territory of compelling wanted to make a purchase of a government approve.

Product that is declared to be an interstate commerce product to be -- to just get the constitutional linkage and rationalizations justification.

Congress has never done so.

And if this great leap of 16 of our economy has imposed by the federal government in the court approves this kind of -- stretching of the commerce clause.

Then there's nothing left that exists in the commerce clause in my opinion.

And the federal government could impose any kind of a duty any kind of responsibility they could they could commandeer not just won six of our economy.

But point 5% 50% a 100% of our paycheck and tell us how to spend at all.

They can actually put us in debt in the company's store if this is if this case comes down to.

The other -- rationalization.

Of the commerce.

And also could be a cloudy picture in the man who knows in late June when the ruling is expected as to whether or not they will address all these concerns.

They they could for lack of the best phrase in Washington -- can kick it down the road.

Well they got bill and what -- they make -- down.

They can come with a partial decision one of them is that that the bill does not have in it that when he 600 pages doesn't have ended December ability cause.

And that's a clause that would declare that if one part of -- the -- is found unconstitutional.

All parts of the bill stand regardless they pulled that out.

Now for whatever their rationale was there's been some discussion on that on those reasons.

But the courts then have the latitude to -- and should I think because of its omission they should throw the whole thing out.

None are all would be my statement -- Steve King thank you for your time we all wait.

Thank you very much bill you've got to be an interest in place here in Washington DC this three day today it already has spent a.

Watch Live

'Great anticipation' for GOP ahead of health care arguments

Details

Clips

Editor's Picks

Sen. Rand Paul: Obama's speech is a 'misdirection campaign'

Franklin Graham: How the IRS targeted my religious charities

Obama’s foreign policy address

Obama shifts focus to counterterrorism policies

Gutfeld: World, meet radical Islam

Rep. Cantor: Lois Lerner owes Americans an 'explanation'

What evidence will be key in George Zimmerman trial?

Lawmakers overlooking CIA's role in Benghazi attack?

British PM David Cameron vows to never give in to terror

Did IRS official wave Fifth Amendment rights at hearing?

Biking with Bush: Wounded vets join president for ride

Did Benghazi attack derail Romney's presidential campaign?

Transcript

Recommended