Congress gets rough treatment at Supreme Court

Congress gets rough treatment at Supreme Court

FILE - In this March 28, 2012, file photo Paul Clement, the lawyer representing states opposed to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, talks to media outside the Supreme Court in Washington at the end of arguments on the law's constitutionality. Chances are bleak that Congress would act to restore any parts of the law that the court might strike down, one reason why Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Clement, "So why should we say, it's a choice between a wrecking operation, which is what you are requesting, or a salvage job." She added, "And the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything."

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court left little doubt during last week's marathon arguments over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul that it has scant faith in Congress' ability to get anything done.

The views about Congress underlay questions from justices who appear to be on both sides of the argument over the constitutionality of the law's key provision, the individual insurance requirement, as well as whether the entire law should be thrown out if the mandate is struck down.

The comments were particularly striking from the conservative justices who have called on unelected judges to show deference to the actions of elected officials.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who appeared strongly in favor of striking down the entire law, was the most outspoken in his disdain for the branch of government that several justices can see from their office windows.

"You can't repeal the rest of the act because you're not going to get 60 votes in the Senate to repeal the rest. It's not a matter of enacting a new act. You've got to get 60 votes to repeal it. So the rest of the act is going to be the law," Scalia said, explaining it might be better to throw the whole thing out.

Justice Anthony Kennedy draw laughs when he asked a lawyer describing what Congress would want the court to do, "Is that the real Congress or a hypothetical Congress?"

Several justices joined in the courtroom's laughing reaction when the lawyer leading the challenge to the law appeared to suggest Congress could pass new legislation "in a couple of days," if the court wiped away the entire law.

The justices thus seemed to be thinking along the same lines as the public, according to polls that show Congress' standing at historic lows.

That outlook, more prevalent among the conservatives than the liberals on the court, is one reason that the Obama administration's lawyers ran into such stiff resistance in questions from the bench.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. repeatedly invoked Congress' power under the Constitution to take aggressive action to deal with health care, which makes up 17 percent of the U.S. economy, and with the problem of 50 million people who lack insurance but whose health costs are being passed on to taxpayers and those with insurance.

The court, Verrilli said at the end of Tuesday's argument session, "has a solemn obligation to respect the judgments of the democratically accountable branches of government."

Certainly, the liberal justices appeared to agree with Verrilli that Congress, then under Democratic control, did not exceed its power.

Now, Congress is essentially locked in a stalemate, with power divided between Republicans who control the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate.

Chances are slim that Congress would act to restore any parts of the law that the court might strike down, even noncontroversial provisions.

The bleak prospect for legislation is one reason why Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg urged a cautious approach to a raft of provisions, many already in effect, that have nothing to do with the insurance requirement, including changes to benefits for victims of black lung disease.

"So why should we say, it's a choice between a wrecking operation, which is what you are requesting, or a salvage job," Ginsburg told Paul Clement, the lawyer representing states opposed to the law. "And the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything."

Put another way, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "Why we should involve the court in making the legislative judgment?"

Kevin Walsh, a law professor at the University of Richmond who previously served as a Scalia law clerk at the court, said he was surprised by the conservative justices who revealed no apparent trepidation about getting rid of the entire law.

"That would be a very muscular exercise of judicial power," Walsh said.

Scalia has a long history of calling for restraint on the part of unelected judges, and telling people who want changes in the law to go first to their elected representatives.

"You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility," Scalia said in a 2005 speech in Washington, an example of the kind of remarks he has made many times over his more than 25 years as a justice. "Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?"

But he and Kennedy both suggested that it would be more respectful to Congress to give it a blank slate than to hand it back a massive law, with its key provisions excised.

"Do you really think that that is somehow showing deference to Congress and respecting the democratic process? It seems to me it's a gross distortion of it," Scalia said.

Kennedy envisioned an outcome in which the insurance requirement is struck down, but the court leaves in place other requirements forcing insurers to accept people regardless of existing medical conditions and to limit the premiums for older people.

"We would be exercising the judicial power if one provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended. By reason of this court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider. That, it seems to me, can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than striking the whole," he said.

Mega Millions winners are rich, but not THAT rich

Mega Millions winners are rich, but not THAT rich

The $1.46 billion that Americans are expected to spend on Mega Millions lottery tickets could buy: 26 trips to the International Space Station on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft; more than 2.9 million new iPads at the starting price of $499; 12,000 Maserati GranTurismo sports cars; gasoline for 685,000 American households for a year; or a 73 percent share of the Los Angeles Dodgers, based on the $2 billion Magic Johnson and other investors agreed to pay this week for the baseball franchise.

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Congratulations, Mega Millions winners! You've just won the biggest lottery in history! Move over Bill Gates and Warren Buffett!

Not so fast, Richie Rich.

There's no doubt that you're now each a member of the 1 percent. A life of comfort and leisure awaits, and managed wisely, it just might await your friends and family for generations to come.

Let's just not get carried away.

A luxury box at the stadium you can afford, but forget about buying the franchise and becoming the "No. 1 fan" of your favorite NFL or Major League Baseball team. The Los Angeles Dodgers just sold for $2 billion, besting the NFL record price of $1.1 billion for the Miami Dolphins by nine times your take-home winnings.

If you'd like to turn the keys at the sweetest pad in New York City - an $88 million apartment at 15 Central Park West - you'll have to spend nearly all of it to close the deal. But don't get into a bidding war: You're sure to lose out to the current owner, the 22-year-old daughter of a Russian billionaire.

Even if you're looking to become the next great philanthropist, your good deeds can't compete - at least in terms of dollars and cents - with that Gates guy. His foundation has given away close to $26 billion since it was established in 1994.

So, you've got some catching up to do. Don't worry, you're starting from a good place.

In the hours before the dramatic Friday night drawing, the jackpot was estimated at $640 million. If you each take the lump-sum payout, the cartoon checks made out to you will be worth about $150 million. Uncle Sam gets his share, and your state might, too.

All told, you'll each have roughly 100 million reasons to call April 2, 2012, the best Monday morning of your life.

If you follow the advice of those who know money, you won't splurge on those big-ticket items that you can afford, such a top-of-the-line Gulfstream G650 jet ($64 million, excluding pilot, maintenance, hanger and fuel costs) and a place to fly it, your own private island (let's call that $25 million even).

Had you won the whole pot, and invested the $300 million conservatively, Steve Fazzari, an economics professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said you could have expected to collect a nice "salary" of about $7 million "after taxes every year for the rest of your life and the rest of the life of your heirs."

Put another way, that's $19,000 a day. Forever. And even a one-third share of that is pretty sweet. "If you put it in perspective, you're pretty rich," Fazzari said.

It's more than enough to join up with the 1 percent, which the Congressional Budget Office pegged as households with incomes that average more than about $350,000 a year.

But it's still not all THAT much, at least according those buzzkills at Forbes. Just 30 years ago, the total after-taxes take of $300 million would have been more than enough to land a single winner on the magazine's annual list of the 400 richest Americans. In 2011, you would have needed $1.05 billion to tie four others for last place on a list topped by Gates.

In fact, your $100 million isn't even two-tenths of 1 percent of Gates' estimated $61 billion net worth. Using Fazzari's math on conservative investing, the Microsoft co-founder can expect to bring in an annual salary of $1.4 billion - or 14 times your share of the historic jackpot.

But that's Bill Gates, America's richest man. Surely you'll be the richest guy on your block?

Perhaps, but not in the city centers of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. In Chicago alone, Forbes says there are 18 billionaires, including six members of one family.

Even in a smaller city such as St. Louis, you're likely to find yourself a handful of zeros from the top: Under the Gateway Arch, the big money belongs to Enterprise Rent-A-Car's Jack Taylor and his family. They're worth an estimated $9 billion.

But none of that matters, right? So what if there are hundreds of billionaires out there whose wealth makes yours look like that of a pauper, or that there are limits you never imagined facing to a jackpot you could ever imagine winning. Surely that $100 million will at least solve all your cares and provide a lifetime of happiness.

Yeah, not so much.

"After they win the jackpot, most of them self-destruct and they end up much more unhappy than they were before," Dr. Tom Manheim, who offers financial therapy in Solana Beach, Calif. "It's really kind of a sad state of our economy where we think that money, once again is going to bring us happiness, and it doesn't."

So, uh, yeah, congratulations, we guess, to the Mega Millions winners.

(And no, those of us who didn't win aren't bitter. Not one little bit.)

What $1.46B spent on Mega Millions could buy

What $1.46B spent on Mega Millions could buy

The $1.46 billion that Americans are expected to spend on Mega Millions lottery tickets could buy: 26 trips to the International Space Station on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft; more than 2.9 million new iPads at the starting price of $499; 12,000 Maserati GranTurismo sports cars; gasoline for 685,000 American households for a year; or a 73 percent share of the Los Angeles Dodgers, based on the $2 billion Magic Johnson and other investors agreed to pay this week for the baseball franchise.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans are expected to spend $1.46 billion on Mega Millions lottery tickets. So how far does $1.46 billion go?

How much of the Los Angeles Dodgers would it buy? How many trips into space? How much would it shrink the federal budget gap?

With the money that's been spent pursuing the record $640 million jackpot, you could:

- Feed 238,000 American families for a year.

- Buy a 73 percent share of the Los Angeles Dodgers, based on the $2 billion that Magic Johnson and other investors agreed to pay this week for the baseball franchise.

- Stock up on 228 tons of Beluga caviar.

- Trim this year's expected $1.3 trillion federal deficit by just over one-tenth of 1 percent.

- Take 26 trips to the International Space Station on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft.

- Buy 10 F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jets

- Treat 685,000 average U.S. households to gasoline for a full year.

- Quadruple the $349 million that President Barack Obama and his Republican challengers spent on their presidential campaigns through February this year.

- Pay for just under 3 1/2 hours' worth of federal spending.

- Buy nearly 3 million new iPads at the starting price of $499 - almost as many as Apple has already sold.

- Pay a year's worth of health care expenses for 462,000 American average families.

- Finance the making of the blockbuster movie "The Hunger Games" 19 times over.

- Provide a week of unemployment benefits for nearly 40 percent of America's 12.8 million unemployed.

Obama: Oil supply enough to keep squeeze on Iran

Obama: Oil supply enough to keep squeeze on Iran

President Barack Obama rolls up his sleeves as he speaks at a campaign fundraiser at the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vt., Friday, March, 30, 2012.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama said Friday he was plowing ahead with potential sanctions against countries that keep buying oil from Iran, including allies of the United States, in a deepening campaign to starve Iran of money for its disputed nuclear program.

The world oil market is tight but deep enough to keep the squeeze on Iran, Obama ruled.

The sanctions aim to further isolate Iran's central bank, which processes nearly all of the Iran's oil purchases, from the global economy. Obama's move clears the way for the U.S. to penalize foreign financial institutions that do oil business with Iran by barring them from having a U.S.-based affiliate or doing business here.

Obama's goal is to tighten the pressure on Iran, not allies, and already the administration exempted 10 European Union countries and Japan from the threat of sanctions because they cut their oil purchases from Iran. Other nations have about three months to significantly reduce such imports before sanctions would kick in.

Still, administration officials said that Obama is ready to slap sanctions on U.S. partners and that his action on Friday was another signal.

At issue for Obama was ruling, by Friday, whether oil supplies were sufficient to keep demanding that nations cut off Iran - not an insignificant matter in a time of high election-year gas prices at home.

Obama gave his OK after considering available reserves, increased oil production by some countries and global economic conditions. The White House emphasized that he would continue to keep an eye on the oil market to make sure that it - and its consumers - could withstand shrinking purchases out of Iran.

With oil prices already rising this year amid rising tensions over the nuclear dispute between Iran and the West, U.S. officials have sought assurances that pushing countries to stop buying from Iran would not cause a further spike in prices.

It is not year clear, at this stage of the process, how the sanctions could affect gas prices.

The U.S. sanctions are set to take effect on June 28. A European oil embargo, approved in January, starts in July.

Put together, Obama administration officials contend Iran is about to face its most severe economic pressure ever.

The United States imports no oil from Iran.

The main importers of Iranian oil that have not received exemptions from the U.S. are China, India, Turkey, South Africa and South Korea. The administration would be loath to hit a close friend like South Korea or India, or a NATO ally like Turkey, with sanctions, and is working with those countries to reduce their imports.

Turkey announced Friday it was shrinking oil imports from Iran by 20 percent, apparently bowing to pressure from the United States and the sanctions threat.

U.S. officials hope ratcheting up economic pressure will both push Iran to abandon its nuclear program and convince Israel to give sanctions time to take hold before pursuing a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

The U.S. and allies believe that Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb; Iran denies that.

Obama's diplomatic squeeze on Iran comes with strong bipartisan support from Congress, which approved the sanctions plan as part of a defense bill in December.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who co-authored the sanctions legislation with Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, said he welcomed Obama's support in targeting Iran's Central Bank.

"Today, we put on notice all nations that continue to import petroleum or petroleum products from Iran that they have three months to significantly reduce those purchases or risk the imposition of severe sanctions on their financial institutions," Menendez said.

He predicted most countries would cut their purchase of oil from Iran, either out of fear of sanctions or a shared fear over the Iran's pursuit of nuclear weaponry.

The United States has not said precisely what constitutes a significant reduction in Iranian oil purchases - that is, the bar countries must meet to avoid penalties.

Administration officials said Friday they determine that on a case-by-case basis.

Domestic and foreign policy concerns have complicated the administration's decision to pursue the oil sanctions.

Oil experts testifying before a Senate panel on Thursday said tensions over Iran were already contributing to the high prices Americans were paying at the pump. And additional sanctions could drive up the price more in a tight market.

High court has options on health care law

High court has options on health care law

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The arguments are done and the case has been submitted, as Chief Justice John Roberts says at the end of every Supreme Court argument. Now the justices will wrestle with what to do with President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. They have a range of options, from upholding the law to striking it down in its entirety. The court also could avoid deciding the law's constitutionality at all, although that prospect seems remote after this week's arguments.

Here is a look at six potential outcomes, from the simpler to the more complicated possible rulings:

---

Q. What if the Supreme Court upholds the law and finds Congress was within its authority to require most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty?

A. A decision in favor of the law would end the legal fight and allow the administration to push forward with implementing its provisions over the next few years, including the insurance requirement, an expansion of Medicaid and a ban on private insurers' denying coverage to people with pre-existing health problems.

The political wrangling, however, probably would continue as Republican candidates for president and lesser offices are calling for repeal of the law.

---

Q. What if, on the other hand, the court strikes down the entire law?

A. That would kill a costly new federal entitlement before it has a chance to take root and develop a constituency of beneficiaries and supporters, namely more than 30 million people who are supposed to wind up with health insurance because of the law.

In addition, some parts of the law already are in effect and would be rolled back. One popular provision allowing young adults to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26 has added nearly 2.5 million people to the coverage rolls, at no cost to taxpayers.

But there's no escaping America's double-barreled problem of excruciatingly high health care costs and many uninsured people, more than 50 million according to the latest estimates.

Whether it's dealing with the federal deficit, retirement security for seniors or even the Pentagon budget, elected officials would still have to confront health care at nearly every turn.

Congress would get to roll the ball up the hill again.

---

Q. What happens if the court strikes down the individual insurance requirement, but leaves the rest of the Affordable Care Act in place?

A. Knocking out the requirement that Americans carry insurance would not be the end of Obama's health care overhaul. There's a lot more in the 900-plus pages of the law.

But it would make the complicated legislation a lot harder to carry out, risking more complications for a U.S. health care system already seen as wasteful, unaffordable and unable to deliver consistently high quality.

Ten million to 15 million uninsured people who would have gotten coverage under the law could be left out.

The cost of individually purchased private health insurance would jump. That would make it more expensive for the government to subsidize premiums, although millions of middle-class people would still be entitled to such assistance under the law's remaining provisions.

If the individual mandate is struck, the law's Medicaid expansion would still cover millions more low-income people, mainly childless adults.

And a host of other mandates would stay in place. Starting in 2014, medium-sized and large employers would be hit with fines for not providing coverage to their workers.

Insurance companies would be required to accept people with pre-existing medical problems, no longer allowed to cherry-pick the healthy to keep costs down. They would also be barred from imposing higher premiums on people in poor health, and limited in what they could charge older adults.

If that happens, premiums in the individual health insurance market would jump anywhere from 10 percent to 30 percent, according to various forecasts from economists.

Experts debate whether or not such a cost spike would trigger the collapse of the insurance market for individuals and small businesses - or just make coverage even more expensive than it already is.

"Without a mandate the law is a lot less effective," said MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who advised the Obama administration and, earlier on, then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who put such an insurance mandate in that state's health care law. "The market will not collapse, but it will be a ton more expensive and cover many fewer people."

---

Q. What if the court strikes down the mandate and invalidates the parts of the law that require insurance companies to cover people regardless of medical problems and that limit what they can charge older people?

A. Many fewer people would get covered, but the health insurance industry would avoid a dire financial hit.

Insurers would be able to continue screening out people with a history of medical problems, such as diabetes patients or cancer survivors.

That would prevent a sudden jump in premiums. But it would leave consumers with no assurance that they can get health insurance when they need it, a major problem the law was intended to fix. Other economically developed countries guarantee health insurance for their citizens.

A related requirement limits premiums charged to older adults. Currently people in their late 50s and early 60s can face premiums as much as six or seven times higher than those charged to 20-year-olds. The law says insurers may charge older adults no more than three times what they charge younger ones.

Administration lawyers say the insurance requirement goes hand in hand with the coverage guarantee and cap on premiums, and have asked the court to get rid of both if it finds the mandate to be unconstitutional.

---

Q. What happens if the court throws out only the expansion of the Medicaid program?

A. Throwing out the expansion would severely limit the law's impact because roughly half the more than 30 million people expected to gain health insurance under the law would get it through the expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people.

The law would effectively bring under Medicaid everyone making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. That works out to about $15,400 for an individual, $30,650 for a family of four. Most of those who would be added to the Medicaid rolls are low-income adults without children.

But a potentially sizable number of those low-income people might still be eligible for government-subsidized - though probably more expensive - private insurance under other provisions of the law. Private coverage will probably be more expensive for taxpayers to subsidize than Medicaid.

States suing to overturn the federal law argue that the Medicaid expansion comes with so many strings attached it amounts to an unconstitutional power grab by Washington, reaching directly into the wallets of state taxpayers.

The administration counters that the federal government is paying all of the initial cost of the expansion, and 90 percent in perpetuity, well above what Washington contributes for regular Medicaid. Moreover, when Congress created Medicaid in 1965 it also served notice on the states that program rules could change in the future. This is only the latest of many such changes.

The Supreme Court took on this issue even though none of the district or appeals courts that heard health care lawsuits had any problem with the Medicaid expansion.

"We don't have any lower court that has struck down this (Medicaid) provision, so there is no precedent from the lower courts on how to handle it," said Diane Rowland, a Medicaid expert with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "They all upheld it."

---

Q. What happens if the court decides that the constitutional challenge is premature?

A. The wild card, and least conclusive outcome in the case, probably also is the least likely, based on what justices said during the arguments. No justice seemed inclined to take this path, which involves the court's consideration of a technical issue. The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., held that the challenge to the insurance requirement has to wait until people start paying the penalty for not purchasing insurance. The appeals court said it was bound by the federal Anti-Injunction Act, which is intended to facilitate tax collections and keep the government operating. That law says federal courts may not hear challenges to taxes, or anything that looks like a tax, until after they are paid.

It remains at least possible that if the justices have trouble coming together on any of the other options they could simply decide not to decide the big issues.

Although the administration says it doesn't want this result, such a decision would allow it to continue putting the law in place and force postponement of any subsequent challenge until more of the benefits are being received. On the other hand, Republicans might have more ammunition to press for repeal of the law in the meantime.

New video raises doubts about Fla. gunman's story

New video raises doubts about Fla. gunman's story

In this image taken from video at the Sanford, Fla., Police Department, George Zimmerman, in red jacket, is escorted into the Sanford police station in handcuffs on Feb. 26, 2012, the night he fatally shot Trayvon Martin.

MIAMI (AP) -- Newly released police video of a handcuffed George Zimmerman may be important for what it doesn't show: No obvious cuts, scrapes, blood or bandages. No clearly broken nose. No plainly visible evidence of a life-and-death struggle with Trayvon Martin.

As the furor over race and self-defense raged on in Florida and around the U.S. on Thursday, Martin's family and supporters seized on the footage to dispute Zimmerman's claim that he shot and killed the unarmed black teenager after the young man attacked him.

While cautioning that the video is grainy and far from conclusive, some legal experts agreed it does raise questions about Zimmerman's story. The video was made about a half-hour after the shooting Feb. 26.

"It could be very significant," said Daniel Lurvey, a former Miami-Dade County homicide prosecutor. "If I were the prosecutor, it would certainly be Exhibit A that he did not suffer any major injury as a result of a confrontation with Trayvon Martin."

Zimmerman attorney Craig Sonner said on NBC's "Today" show that the footage appears to support his client's story in some respects.

"It's a very grainy video. ... However, if you watch, you'll see one of the officers, as he's walking in, looking at something on the back of his head," Sonner said. "Clearly the report shows he was cleaned up before he was taken in the squad car."

Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in the town of Sanford, told police he shot the 17-year-old Martin after the young man punched him in the nose, knocked him down and repeatedly slammed his head against a sidewalk.

The Sanford Police Department video begins at 7:52 p.m., about 35 minutes after the shooting, as Zimmerman arrives at the station. It shows Zimmerman's head and face as he gets out of a police car. There is no sound on the video.

There is no obvious wound on his head or blood on his clothing, and there are no indications of a broken nose - which Zimmerman's lawyer has insisted he suffered. He walks briskly, smoothly and unassisted.

"The explanation he is relying on is that there was a physical altercation," said Kendall Coffey, former U.S. attorney in Miami. "The intensity of the physical conflict is critical to his self-defense claim."

Benjamin Crump, an attorney for the Martin family, said the footage directly contradicts Zimmerman's story: "There are no marks on his face. There is no blood on his face. It's not like he's dazed or he has been injured."

Yet Ron Martinelli, founder of a California forensic consulting firm, said that Zimmerman was probably cleaned up when he was treated by paramedics at the scene and that in many cases there is no significant visual evidence of an injury.

"It really depends on how did the head strike the concrete? Did he get hit straight on in the face? Did he get hit with a fist or a backhand?" Martinelli said. "The video proves absolutely nothing."

Investigators have not released any paramedic or hospital records on the gunman. The video, as well as a photo of Zimmerman on the website of a company where he worked, show a slim man, a sharp contrast from the widely used 2005 booking photo from an arrest in Miami Dade County.

The police report said that Zimmerman was found bleeding from the nose and the back of his head, and his back was wet and covered in grass, as if he had been lying on the ground. He was given first aid at the scene. According to his lawyer, he also went to the hospital the next day.

Zimmerman, whose mother is Hispanic and whose father is white, has not been arrested, despite demands from black leaders and others that he be charged with murder or manslaughter. But a special prosecutor appointed by the governor is investigating, along with state and federal authorities.

David O. Markus, a prominent Miami defense attorney, said that an actual fight does not need to take place for someone to claim self-defense under Florida's "stand your ground" law, which gives wide leeway to use deadly force and eliminates a person's duty to retreat in the face of danger.

The video is yet another forensic challenge for investigators trying to unravel the case. Other key pieces of evidence include:

-The 911 call made by a woman who told a police dispatcher she could hear someone screaming for help, followed by a gunshot. The screaming voice can also be heard on the recording. Zimmerman told investigators it is his voice, but Martin's parents believe it is their son's. Martinelli said that investigators could do voice comparisons but that screaming is difficult to duplicate and match.

-A 911 call made by Zimmerman in which, to some people, he seemed to utter a racial slur while following Martin in his SUV. The raw recording is far from definitive. But recordings can be enhanced, and if Zimmerman did utter a slur, that could be evidence of racial bias and lead to federal hate-crime charges.

- The autopsy report, which has not been released. That could shed light on whether the angle of the bullet wound in Martin's body is consistent with Zimmerman's account of the confrontation.

Caught On Tape: Passenger Robbed Aboard SEPTA Bus

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – Philadelphia police are searching for three men who were caught on tape stealing a cell phone from a victim aboard a SEPTA bus.

The robbery happened at about 4:30 p.m. on March 14th near the intersection of 52nd and Market Streets.

According to investigators, the incident began while the victim was waiting for a SEPTA bus. The suspect approached the victim and demanded property from him.

For full story go to: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/

Trayvon Inc: Fla teen's case turns into brand

Trayvon Inc: Fla teen's case turns into brand

FILE -In this Monday, March 26, 2012 file photo, Andre Parker, of Atlanta, wears a t-shirt in memory of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed 17-year-old who was killed by a Florida neighborhood watch captain while returning from a convenience store, during a rally outside the Georgia Capitol, in Atlanta. From the T-shirts and hoodie sales to pass-the-hat donations to trademarking slogans such as "Justice for Trayvon," the wheels are in motion to make money from the Florida shooting of teenager Trayvon Martin. His mother says at least some of the proceeds will be used to help other families. Experts say it is impossible to say how much could be made off the case but it's the latest example of a cause turned into an Internet-fueled brand.

MIAMI (AP) -- From the T-shirt and hoodie sales to trademarking slogans like "Justice for Trayvon" to the pass-the-hat rallies that bring in thousands, the case of an unarmed black teenager killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer is quickly turning into an Internet-fueled brand.

Websites are hawking key chains bearing Trayvon Martin's likeness. His parents have bought two trademarks, saying they hope to raise money to help other families struck by tragedy. Trayvon clothes, bumper stickers, buttons and posters are up for grabs on eBay.

Vendors selling Martin T-shirts and hoodies have become fixtures at rallies in Sanford, the central Florida town where Martin was shot last month. At one Sanford rally this week, a man had a variety of T-shirts laid out on the ground as marchers went by, yelling out, "I've got every size!"

The Martin shooting by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, who says he shot the 17-year-old Miami teen in self-defense, has inflamed racial tensions across the country, brought out thousands for rallies, prompted a civil rights probe and a personal reference to the case by President Barack Obama.

A phenomenon on that scale is bound to be commercialized, said Donna Hoffman, a marketing professor at the University of California-Riverside.

"People can start to wear their feelings and emotions. It makes sense, even if there's a profit motive," Hoffman said. "There's a legitimate interest in sharing the pain, and these products do that."

Van Johnson, who designs T-shirts and other apparel in Charlotte, N.C., said he initially wanted to come up with something for his 12-year-old son to show solidarity with Martin's supporters. He produced a color drawing based on a photograph of Martin wearing a hoodie, which the teenager was wearing on the night he was killed.

"I really don't expect to make more than $200 at the most," Johnson said. "I'm happy some people bought my products, that way a few people will have a very nice design on their shirt or hoodie to show their support."

Karriem Muhammad, who runs Young Nation Apparel in St. Louis, is selling a separate hoodie for $35 with the words "Please Don't Shoot Me I Only Have Skittles And A Drink!!!" Martin was returning from a convenience store with the candy and iced tea when he was confronted by Zimmerman.

"We really just kind of put the shirt out there this week. It's not necessarily profit at all," Muhammad said. "I wanted to bring some awareness to the issue. I felt it would be a good way to expose the store, to get our name out there."

Zimmerman, 28, who has a white father and Hispanic mother, has not been charged. Martin's parents have demanded he be arrested. The U.S. Justice Department has launched a probe to look for possible civil rights violations; a special state prosecutor is also investigating. Jackelyn Bernard, spokeswoman for special prosecutor Angela Corey, said Wednesday the investigation could take weeks and said it's unclear if a grand jury will be empaneled.

Hoffman said it's difficult to gauge how the Trayvon sales might stack up against those from similar cases, such as the 1992 Los Angeles riots following the Rodney King beating, because those were before the explosion of Internet marketing.

"Anyone can do it with any image," she said.

Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, headed off potential profit-seekers by filing trademark applications last week for the words "Justice For Trayvon" and "I Am Trayvon." The applications say the slogans may be used in digital media formats including CDs and DVDs. A family attorney said Wednesday the purpose is mainly to prevent others from exploiting Martin's image.

"It wasn't to make money off Trayvon's name, it was to stop the exploitation of Trayvon's name," said the attorney, Natalie Jackson. "We wanted this family to own their child's legacy."

A sign company called FamilyGraphix decided this week to pull its Martin-related decals after learning of Fulton's move. One such decal, which was to sell for $8, said "Don't Shoot Me, All I Have Is A Bag of Skittles."

Johnson, the T-shirt designer, questioned Fulton's move.

"You would think the parents of Trayvon Martin would encourage the spreading of their son's name and image," he said. "As a parent of four, I personally would welcome any and all exposure. I would want my son's name everywhere."

At rallies and church services, thousands of dollars in pledges have been made to help Fulton and Tracy Martin, Martin's father, pay expenses including travel to events in Washington and New York, Jackson said. At one early rally, the Rev. Al Sharpton asked people to make out checks to Fulton and put them in buckets that were passed around.

"Let's show the world we're going to finance our own movement," said Sharpton, who pledged $2,500 himself.

The case has had other benefits for involved organizations. More than 30,000 people signed an NAACP petition to Florida prosecutors in just a 24-hour period. Eric Wingerter, spokesman for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored people, says the organization hasn't used the case as a fundraising tool but has seen an uptick in memberships.

At some point, Hoffman said, the Trayvon Martin brand could wear thin if it's overused.

"People might feel, `I'm sick of hearing about this.' That feeling could be accelerated if everywhere you turn, there are people wearing their hearts on their sleeve," Hoffman said. "All this merchandise out there will start to have a taint in the mind of the public."

Boat sinks, Texas man survives 30 hours in Gulf

Boat sinks, Texas man survives 30 hours in Gulf

This undated photo provided by Ashley Coen shows Ken Henderson during a fishing trip. Henderson's longtime friend Ed Coen died after their fishing boat sank in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday. The men treaded water for over 30 hours before Henderson decided to swim to a natural gas rig for help. Coen's body was later found by a fisherman.

HOUSTON (AP) -- For hours after their boat sank, Ken Henderson and Ed Coen treaded water in the Gulf of Mexico, talking about life and death while struggling to survive. For more than 30 hours, it worked.

Then Henderson was forced to make a decision that would save his life, but not his best friend's.

"This is the last-ditch effort, but I'm going to go for help or you're not going to make it," Henderson told Coen, just before cutting the strap that connected them in the deep, cold waters off the Texas coast.

"I understand," Coen responded, giving Henderson a last set of instructions. "Kiss them babies for me."

It was Friday around 4 p.m. when they parted.

On Tuesday, days after the fishing trip ended in tragedy, Henderson recounted the harrowing tale for The Associated Press, alternating between sorrow, guilt and laughter as he recalled the last 30 hours of Coen's life and the pain of living life without the man who had been his best friend for 25 years.

The saga began Thursday right around noon. They had been fishing for a few hours and popped open some Diet Coke's. A line in the water, they joked around.

Suddenly, Coen noticed the 30-foot Scarab was filling with water. Henderson started four bilge pumps. Water sprayed everywhere.

Coen quickly unhooked the boat from one of the many oil rigs in area where they had been fishing. Henderson revved an engine, but it died. Frantic, he got both motors roaring - only to have the saltwater that had leaked in kill them quickly. Bow to the wind, it was clear any wave could flip them.

"Mayday, mayday, mayday Marine 16," Henderson called over his Marine radio. He got no response.

He dialed 9-1-1 on his cellphone. There was no signal.

Suddenly, the bow went up. Henderson flew back. Coen jumped to the right, his sunglasses and cap flying off. Already wearing life jackets, the two ex-Marines grabbed extra life jackets and other floating items, including a half full bottle of Diet Coke.

"The water was so cold it took your breath away," Henderson said.

Coen, a slim man, immediately began to shiver.

After failing to swim to a gas well nearby, the pair prepared for a long wait. Coen worried his life jacket wouldn't hold him up, so Henderson strapped an extra around his friend's neck. Henderson feared he was getting pulled down and put a life jacket between his legs. With his pocket knife, Henderson created a train with an extra life jacket. He tied red material to the top of a boat pole, creating a flag.

And they talked.

"We talked about stuff that I'll never talk about. We discussed things and discussed life. We discussed families. We just tried to keep ourselves occupied," Henderson said.

As night fell, they took turns laying on each other's chests, conserving body heat. They tied their life jackets together to ensure they wouldn't drift apart in the dark.

They dozed. Coen started hallucinating. Henderson tried to keep Coen's arms and legs moving. He called him a sissy to get him angry. But as morning came, Coen's situation worsened. It took time to wake up. He tried to light a cigarette that wasn't in his mouth. He wanted to go to the store.

"I came to the realization that one of us may not make it or that both of us may not make it," Henderson said. "I just felt helpless sitting there with him."

About 3 p.m., the pair drifted toward a manned rig. Henderson realized his friend wasn't keeping his head above water. He put another life jacket behind Coen's head, but his friend pulled it over his face, trying to protect himself from the afternoon sun.

Henderson told Coen to kick to the rig. He pulled him as he swam, but Coen was sideways. Henderson told him to kick. Coen thought he was.

And so Henderson decided to cut the strap.

He swam for two hours, but lost his sense of direction. He was tired. Frustrated. Depressed. He rolled on his back and floated. It was after 7 p.m. when he woke up.

He saw another rig in the distance, and prayed for strength.

He swam, seeing ice and crystal trees in the water. He reminded himself constantly there were no trees. He focused on the phosphorescent plankton glowing in the water. He made it past a blinking light, a milestone that pushed him on toward the rig.

It was 2 a.m.

On legs so weak he could barely lift them, Henderson slowly pulled himself up the rig's barnacle-covered ladder. On deck, he closed and opened his eyes. Gingerly, he touched the floor.

"I'm here. I'm on a derrick," Henderson said out loud.

He found a galley with food, water and a phone. He called his wife, and told her to call the Coast Guard. He said he was on rig 633A. He poured himself a cup of water. He got out of his wet clothes, wrapped himself in a blanket, threw the clothes in a washing machine and reassured the unbelieving Coast Guard he had the right rig number.

"It was over 50 miles from where we went in the water," Henderson said.

All he could think of, though, was Coen. Convinced his friend would survive, he told the Coast Guard where they had parted.

Two hours later, Henderson was ashore in the Coast Guard dispatch room when haunting words came across the radio. A fisherman had found a body in a life jacket.

"Is that Ed? Is that Ed?" Henderson asked as Coast Guard officers ushered him from the room.

Later, in the hospital, Henderson saw his friend. He apologized and asked for forgiveness. He promised to fulfill his wishes, make him proud and look after his girls.

"I felt like a part of me had died out there," Henderson said.

Justices signal deep trouble for health care law

Justices signal deep trouble for health care law

Amy Brighton from Medina, Ohio, who opposes health care reform, rallies in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, March 27, 2012, as the court continues arguments on the health care law signed by President Barack Obama.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The fate of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul was cast into deeper jeopardy Tuesday as the Supreme Court's conservative justices sharply and repeatedly questioned its core requirement that virtually every American carry insurance. The court will now take up whether any remnant of the historic law can survive if that linchpin fails.

The justices' questions in Tuesday's hearing carried deeply serious implications but were sometimes flavored with fanciful suggestions. If the government can force people to buy health insurance, justices wanted to know, can it require people to buy burial insurance? Cellphones? Broccoli?

The law, pushed to passage by Obama and congressional Democrats two years ago, would affect nearly all Americans and extend insurance coverage to 30 million people who now lack it. Republicans are strongly opposed, including the presidential contenders now campaigning for the chance to challenge Obama in November.

Audio for Tuesday's court argument can be found at: http://apne.ws/Hft6z3 .

The court focused on whether the mandate for Americans to have insurance "is a step beyond what our cases allow," in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

But Kennedy, who is often the swing vote on cases that divide the justices along ideological lines, also said he recognized the magnitude of the nation's health care problems and seemed to suggest they would require a comprehensive solution.

He and Chief Justice John Roberts emerged as the apparent pivotal votes in the court's decision. The ruling is due in June in the midst of a presidential election campaign that has focused in part on the new law.

Though many of the justices asked tough questions and made strong statements, past cases have shown that those don't necessarily translate into votes when it comes time for a decision.

Wednesday's final arguments - the third day in the unusually long series of hearings - will focus on whether the rest of the law can remain even if the insurance mandate is struck down and, separately, on the constitutionality of another provision expanding the federal-state Medicaid program.

The insurance requirement is intended to complement two unchallenged provisions of the law that require insurers to cover people regardless of existing medical conditions and limit how much they can charge in premiums based on a person's age or health.

The law envisions that insurers will be able to accommodate older and sicker people without facing financial ruin because the insurance requirement will provide insurance companies with more premiums from healthy people to cover the increased costs of care.

The biggest issue, to which the justices returned repeatedly during two hours of arguments in a packed courtroom, was whether the government can force people to buy insurance.

"Purchase insurance in this case, something else in the next case," Roberts said.

"If the government can do this, what else can it not do?" Justice Antonin Scalia asked. He and Justice Samuel Alito appeared likely to join with Justice Clarence Thomas, the only justice to ask no questions, to vote to strike down the key provision of the overhaul. The four Democratic appointees seemed ready to vote to uphold it.

Kennedy at one point said that allowing the government mandate would "change the relationship" between the government and U.S. citizens.

"Do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution" for the individual mandate? asked Kennedy.

At another point, however, he also acknowledged the complexity of resolving the issue of paying for America's health care needs.

"I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree ... the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries. That's my concern in the case," Kennedy said.

Roberts also spoke about the uniqueness of health care, which almost everyone uses at some point.

"Everybody is in this market, so that makes it very different than the market for cars or the other hypotheticals that you came up with, and all they're regulating is how you pay for it," Roberts said, paraphrasing the government's argument.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. sought to assure the court that the insurance mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that Obama signed into law in 2009 is a key part of the law's goal of reaching many of the more than 40 million people who don't have health insurance through their employers, don't qualify for government aid and cannot afford to buy coverage on their own.

Paul Clement, who is representing Florida and 25 other states in challenging the law, called the mandate "an unprecedented effort by Congress."

Clement, a predecessor of Verrilli's as solicitor general, said the requirement would force people, especially those who are young and healthy, to buy a product they don't want.

Michael Carvin, representing the National Federation of Independent Business in opposing the law, also pushed hard on the notion of individual freedom. When Justice Stephen Breyer asked if the federal government could not order vaccinations "if there was some terrible epidemic sweeping the United States," Carvin said no. Congress lacks the power to do so, he said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she found the debate over health care similar to an earlier era's argument about the Social Security retirement system. How could Congress be able to compel younger workers to contribute to Social Security but be limited in its ability to address health care? she wondered.

"There's something very odd about that, that the government can take over the whole thing and we all say, oh, yes, that's fine, but if the government wants to preserve private insurers, it can't do that," she said.

Scalia and Roberts noted that the health care overhaul law would make people get insurance for things they may not need, such as heart transplants or pregnancy services. "You can't say that everybody is going to participate in substance abuse services," Roberts said.

On the other hand, Ginsburg said, "The people who don't participate in this market are making it more expensive for those who do."

"You could say that about buying a car," Scalia retorted, noting that if enough people don't buy cars the cost could go up.

But, unlike cars, almost everyone eventually will be required to use the health care system, Verrilli said in defense of the law. Without health insurance, he said, "you're going to the market without the ability to pay for what you're going to get."

Members of Congress on both sides of the fight sat through Tuesday's arguments, along with Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Republicans opposed to the law in the audience included Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Also at the court were Democratic supporters including Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana and Reps. John Dingell and John Conyers, both of Michigan.

Demonstrators returned Tuesday to the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court, with more than 100 supporters of the law circling and chanting, "I love Obamacare." They carried signs reading slogans such as "A healthy America is a productive America" and `'Protect the law."

More than a dozen opponents held a news conference criticizing the bill.

Supporters, two of them wearing Statue of Liberty costumes, marched to music played over a loudspeaker. A trumpet player played "When the Saints Go Marching In" and "This Little Light of Mine," and supporters changed the lyrics to ones supporting the health care law.

One demonstrator opposing the law wore a striped prison costume and held a sign, "Obama Care is Putting the US Tax Payer in Debtors Prison."

Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a former Republican presidential candidate, joined a tea party press conference of opponents of the law. Calling the law "the greatest expansion of federal power in the history of the country," she said, "We are calling on the court today: Declare this law unconstitutional."

Excerpts from Supreme Court health care arguments

Excerpts from Supreme Court health care arguments

Excerpts from Monday's Supreme Court arguments over whether legal challenges to President Barack Obama's health care law are premature under the Anti-Injunction Act, which bars lawsuits against a tax until after the tax is paid:

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: This case presents issues of great moment and the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the Court's consideration of those issues.

Robert A. Long: Somewhat to my surprise, "tax" is not defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: Assuming we find that this is not jurisdictional, what is the parade of horribles that you see occurring if we call this a mandatory claim processing rule? What kinds of cases do you imagine that courts will reach?

Justice Antonin Scalia: If it's not jurisdictional, what's going to happen is you are going to have an intelligent federal court deciding whether you are going to make an exception. And there will be no parade of horribles because all federal courts are intelligent.

Justice Stephen Breyer: What we want to do is get money from these people. Most of them get the money by buying the insurance and that will help pay. But if they don't, they are going to pay this penalty, and that will help, too.

Justice Samuel Alito: Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?

Verrilli: No, Justice Alito, but the Court has held in the license tax cases that something can be a constitutional exercise of the taxing power whether or not it is called a tax. And that's because the nature of the inquiry that we will conduct tomorrow is different from the nature of the inquiry that we will conduct today. Tomorrow the question is whether Congress has the authority under the taxing power to enact it and the form of words doesn't have a dispositive effect on that analysis. Today we are construing statutory text where the precise choice of words does have a dispositive effect on the analysis.

Justice Elena Kagan: Suppose a person does not purchase insurance, a person who is obligated to do so under the statute doesn't do it, pays the penalty instead, and that person finds herself in a position where she is asked the question, have you ever violated any federal law, would that person have violated a federal law?

Verrilli: No. Our position is that person should give the answer "no."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: There's this category of people who are Medicaid eligible; Medicaid doesn't cost them anything. Why would they resist enrolling?

Gregory Katsas: I don't know, Justice Ginsburg. All I know is that the difference between current enrollees and people who could enroll but have not is, as I said, is a $600 million delta.

Roberts: Why would you have a requirement that is completely toothless? You know, buy insurance or else. Or else what? Or else nothing.

Katsas: Because Congress reasonably could think that at least some people will follow the law precisely because it is the law. And let me give you an example of one category of person that might be -- the very poor, who are exempt from the penalty but subject to the mandate.

Katsas: The purpose of this lawsuit is to challenge a requirement -- a federal requirement to buy health insurance. That requirement itself is not a tax. And for that reason alone, we think the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply ...

Chief Justice John Roberts: The whole point of the suit is to prevent the collection of penalties.

Katsas: Of taxes, Mr. Chief Justice.

Roberts: Well, prevent the collection of taxes. But the idea that the mandate is something separate from, whether you want to call it a penalty or tax, just doesn't seem to make much sense.

Katsas: It's entirely separate, and let me explain to you why.

Roberts: It's a command. A mandate is a command. Now, if there is nothing behind the command, it's sort of, well, what happens if you don't follow the mandate? And the answer is nothing. It seems very artificial to separate the punishment from the crime.

Katsas: I'm not sure the answer is nothing, but even assuming it were nothing, it seems to me there is a difference between what the law requires and what enforcement consequences happen to you.

Justices moving to heart of health care overhaul

Justices moving to heart of health care overhaul

Protesters who identified themselves as being with the Tea Party Patriots, including Linda Dorr, of Laguna Beach, Calif., center, demonstrate against the health care law outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, March 26, 2012, as the court began hearing arguments on President Obama's health care legislation.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As demonstrations swirled outside, Supreme Court justices signaled on Monday they are ready to confront without delay the keep-or-kill questions at the heart of challenges to President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul. Virtually every American will be affected by the outcome, due this summer in the heat of the election campaign.

On the first of three days of arguments - the longest in decades - none of the justices appeared to embrace the contention that it was too soon for a decision.

Outside the packed courtroom, marching and singing demonstrators on both sides - including doctors in white coats, a Republican presidential candidate and even a brass quartet - voiced their eagerness for the court to either uphold or throw out the largest expansion in the nation's social safety net since Medicare was enacted in 1965.

Tuesday's arguments will focus on the heart of the case, the provision that aims to extend medical insurance to 30 million more Americans by requiring everyone to carry insurance or pay a penalty.

A decision is expected by late June as Obama fights for re-election. All of his Republican challengers oppose the law and promise its repeal if the high court hasn't struck it down in the meantime.

On Monday, the justices took on the question of whether an obscure tax law could derail the case.

Audio of the day's argument can be found at: http://apne.ws/H8YR1x

The 19th century law bars tax disputes from being heard in the courts before the taxes have been paid.

Under the new health care law, Americans who don't purchase health insurance would have to report that omission on their tax returns for 2014 and would pay a penalty along with federal income tax on returns due by April 2015. Among the issues facing the court is whether that penalty is a tax.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., defending the health law, urged the court to focus on what he called "the issues of great moment" at the heart of the case. The 26 states and a small business group challenging the law also want the court to go ahead and decide on its constitutionality without delay.

But one lower court that heard the case, the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., has said the challenge is premature. No justice seemed likely to buy that argument Monday.

The justices fired two dozen questions in less than a half hour at Washington attorney Robert Long, who was defending the appeals court ruling.

"What is the parade of horribles?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor, if the court were to decide the penalties were not a tax and the health care case went forward? Long suggested that could encourage more challenges to the long-standing system in which the general rule is that taxpayers must pay a disputed tax before they can go to court.

The questions came so quickly at times that the justices interrupted each other. At one point, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sotomayor started speaking at the same time. Chief Justice John Roberts, acting as traffic cop, signaled Ginsburg to go first, perhaps in a nod to her seniority. Only Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his custom, stayed out of the fray.

Verrilli also faced pointed questioning over the administration's differing explanations for whether the penalty is a tax.

"General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax," Justice Samuel Alito said.

Verrilli said Monday's argument dealt with the meaning of the word in the context of the 19th century law, the Anti-Injunction Act. Tuesday's session will explore Congress' power to impose the insurance requirement and penalty. In that setting, he said, Congress has the authority under the Constitution "to lay and collect taxes," including the penalty for not having insurance.

Still, he had trouble keeping his terms straight. Answering a question from Kagan, Verrilli said, "If they pay the tax, then they are in compliance with the law."

Justice Stephen Breyer jumped in: "Why do you keep saying tax?" Breyer reminded Verrilli he should be saying penalty.

"Right. That's right," Verrilli said.

The administration officials involved with the defense and implementation of the health care law, Attorney General Eric Holder, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, were in the courtroom Monday. Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi also were in the crowd that filled the courtroom's 400 seats.

Outside the court building, about 100 supporters of the law walked in a circle holding signs that read, "Protect my healthcare," and chanting, "Care for you, care for me, care for every family." A half-dozen opponents shouted, "We love the Constitution!"

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum was there, too, declaring anew that GOP front-runner Mitt Romney has no standing to challenge Obama on the law since Massachusetts passed a somewhat similar version when Romney was governor. Santorum said, "If you really want Obamacare repealed there's only one person who can make that happen."

Said Romney, on CNN, "If I'm elected president I will repeal Obamacare. And I will stop it in its tracks on Day One. I believe it's unconstitutional. I believe the court will find it unconstitutional."

A four-person student band from Howard University was part of the group favoring the law, playing New Orleans-style jazz tunes.

People hoping for a glimpse of the action had waited in line all weekend for the relatively few seats open to the public. The justices allotted the case six hours of argument time, the most since the mid-1960s.

The justices also will take up whether the rest of the law can remain in place if the insurance mandate falls and, separately, whether Congress lacked the power to expand the Medicaid program to cover 15 million low-income people who currently earn too much to qualify.

If upheld, the law will force dramatic changes in the way insurance companies do business, including forbidding them from denying coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions and limiting how much they can charge older people.

The law envisions that insurers will be able to accommodate older and sicker people without facing financial ruin because of its most disputed element, the requirement that Americans have insurance or pay a penalty.

By 2019, about 95 percent of the country will have health insurance if the law is allowed to take full effect, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Polls have consistently shown the public is at best ambivalent about the benefits of the health care law, and that a majority of Americans believe the insurance requirement is unconstitutional.

Tiger Woods a winner on tour again after 30 months

Tiger Woods a winner on tour again after 30 months

Tiger Woods lines up a putt on the second green during the final round of the Arnold Palmer Invitational golf tournament at Bay Hill, Sunday, March 25, 2012, in Orlando, Fla.

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) -- Tiger Woods finally brought the buzz back to the very thing that made him famous - winning.

Two weeks after another injury scare, and two days before his former coach's book goes on sale, Woods looked dominant as ever in that red shirt on Sunday to win the Arnold Palmer Invitational.

It was his first PGA Tour victory since a sex scandal at the end of 2009 led to one of the greatest downfalls in sports. And with the Masters only two weeks away, Woods looks more capable of ever than resuming his pursuit of Jack Nicklaus in the majors.

Woods closed with a 2-under 70 for a five-shot win over Graeme McDowell.

The question two weeks ago was when he could play again. Now, it's whether he can get back to player who once ruled golf.

Even though he won the unofficial Chevron World Challenge last December, this was meaningful for Woods - a full tour event against a strong field, and a performance so clean that he was never seriously challenged on the back nine.

The final hole was a mere formality, and Woods tapped his putter on the ground waiting for his turn, knowing that 30 months without a win on the PGA Tour was about to win. He walked off the green with his arm extended, waving his cap to a raucous gallery.

"It does feel good. It feels really good," Woods said before signing his card. "It's been a lot of hard work."

Woods finished at 13-under 275 for his 72nd PGA Tour win, one short of Nicklaus for second place on the career list. But that's not the record Woods wants. He has 14 majors, four shot of the Nicklaus standard, and he tries to end a four-year drought at the Masters, which starts April 5.

"I am excited, no doubt," Woods said. "I'm looking forward to the momentum I've built here."

It was the first time Woods had all four rounds under par since he returned from his personal crisis at the 2010 Masters.

McDowell made a 45-foot birdie putt and a 50-foot eagle putt early in the round to try to stay close, though he was never closer than two shots after starting with a double bogey. He closed with a 74.

Ernie Els failed in his bid to get into the Masters. The three-time major champion started the final round three shots behind, but twice missed par putts inside 3 feet and shot 75. He would have needed a two-way tie for second to crack the top 50 in the world. Instead, he tied for fourth and will have to win the Houston Open next week to avoid missing the Masters for the first time since 1993.

This day belonged to Woods, as it used to at Arnie's place.

Only two weeks ago, Woods was taken off Doral in the middle of the final round with tightness in his left Achilles tendon, the same injury that caused him to miss three months last year, including two majors. It turned out to be a mild strain, and Sunday was the eighth straight day that Woods played golf - starting with a practice round last Sunday at Augusta.

His injuries have received more attention in the last year than the personal life crisis that cost him his marriage and corporate support. But in the last week, Hank Haney's book - "The Big Miss" - was mailed out to various media outlets, another distraction for Woods.

The book is go on sale Tuesday, and while it deals mainly with Haney's six years teaching Woods, it raises questions about Woods' fascination with the Navy SEALs and whether that contributed to his injuries, and it portrays Woods as self-centered and rarely satisfied, a side of him that Woods has sought to keep private for so many years.

The win at Bay Hill, his record seventh in the event, puts the chatter back on golf.

"He was a man on a mission today," caddie Joe LaCava said. "He was pretty jacked up. He was out there to prove himself."

Woods goes to No. 6 in the world, his first time back in the top 10 since May 22. He had gone 923 days - dating to Sept. 13, 2009 - since he last won on the PGA Tour at the BMW Championship. And it was his first win on any tour since Nov. 15, 2009, when he won the Australian Masters at Kingston Heath.

Twelve days later, Woods ran his car into a fire hydrant, and revelations poured on about his extramarital affairs. He has not been the same since then, and players began to wonder if his mystique could ever return.

This was a step. A big step. Woods renewed his reputation as golf's greatest closer, winning for the 38th time in 40 attempts when he had the lead going into the final round.

It was McDowell who took down Woods in shocking fashion at the end of 2010 by rallying from four shots down to beat him at the Chevron World Challenge, something long considered unthinkable. And it was McDowell, speaking for so many others on tour, who suggested last August that the red shirt on Sunday was not as intimidating as once was.

McDowell was as formidable as ever. He just couldn't keep up.

The former U.S. Open champion gave Woods a big cushion on the opening hole when his approach buried so badly in the bunker that only the top half of the ball could be seen. He blasted out through the green into another bunker and made double bogey. That gave Woods a three-shot lead, and McDowell never got closer to two the rest of the way.

But he put up a good fight. McDowell took a free drop from a sprinkler head, going from the rough to the fringe, and holed a 45-foot birdie putt after Woods was already in tight for birdie.

Woods hit a towering 3-iron from 267 yards over the water on the par-5 sixth, and before he could attempt his eagle putt from just outside 15 feet, McDowell made his from 50 feet.

It just couldn't last. Woods was in total control of all aspects of his game, the final two holes of the front nine showed it. Woods hit an 8-iron from 182 yards that cleared the bank by a few yards and rolled to within 4 feet for birdie on No. 8. And on the next hole, McDowell missed a 4-foot par putt to fall four shots behind.

McDowell missed three putts inside 10 feet early on the back nine - one of them for par - and then was merely along for the ride.

Afghans: US paid $50K per shooting spree death

Afghans: US paid $50K per shooting spree death

Afghan villagers pray over the grave of one of the 16 victims killed in a shooting rampage in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province south of Kabul, Afghanistan, Saturday, March 24, 2012. Mohammad Wazir has trouble even drinking water now, because it reminds him of the last time he saw his 7-year-old daughter. He had asked his wife for a drink but his daughter insisted on fetching it. Now his daughter Masooma is dead, killed along with 10 other members of his family in a shooting rampage attributed to a U.S. soldier. The soldier faces the death penalty but Wazir and his neighbors say they feel irreparably broken.

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) -- The U.S. paid $50,000 in compensation for each villager killed and $11,000 for each person wounded in a shooting rampage allegedly carried out by a rogue American soldier in southern Afghanistan, Afghan officials said Sunday.

The families were told that the money came from President Barack Obama. The unusually large payouts were the latest move by the White House to mend relations with the Afghan people after the killings threatened to shatter already tense relations.

Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales is accused of sneaking off his base on March 11, then creeping into houses in two nearby villages and opening fire on families as they slept.

The killings came as tensions between the U.S. and Afghanistan were strained following the burning of Qurans at a U.S. base in February. That act - which U.S. officials have acknowledged was a mistake - sparked riots and attacks that killed more than 30 people, including six American soldiers.

There have been no violent protests following the March 11 shootings in Kandahar province's Panjwai district, but demands for justice on Afghan terms have been getting louder since Bales was flown out of the country to a U.S. military prison. Many Afghans in Kandahar have continued to argue that there must have been multiple gunmen and accused the U.S. government of using Bales as a scapegoat.

U.S. investigators believe the gunman returned to his base after the first attack and later slipped away to kill again.

That would seem to support the U.S. government's assertion that the shooter acted alone, since the killings would have been perpetrated over a longer period of time than assumed when Bales was detained outside his base in Kandahar province's Panjwai district.

But it also raises new questions about how the suspect could have carried out the pre-dawn attacks without drawing attention from any Americans on the base.

Bales has been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder and other crimes and could face the death penalty if convicted.

The families of the dead received the money Saturday at the governor's office, said Kandahar provincial council member Agha Lalai. He and community elder Jan Agha confirmed the payout amounts.

Survivors previously had received smaller compensation payments from Afghan officials - $2,000 for each death and $1,000 for each person wounded.

Two U.S. officials confirmed that compensation had been paid but declined to discuss exact amounts, saying only that the payments reflected the devastating nature of the incident. The officials spoke anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject.

A spokesman for NATO and U.S. forces, Lt. Col. Jimmie Cummings, said only that coalition members often make compensation payments, but they are usually kept private.

"As the settlement of claims is in most cases a sensitive topic for those who have suffered loss, it is usually a matter of agreement that the terms of the settlement remain confidential," Cummings said.

However, civilian death compensations are occasionally made public. In 2010, U.S. troops in Helmand province said they paid $1,500 to $2,000 if a civilian was killed in a military operation and $600 to $1,500 for a serious injury. The Panjwai shootings are different because they were not part of a sanctioned operation, but it is a distinction lost on many Afghans who see any civilian deaths as criminal.

The provided compensation figures would mean that at least $866,000 was paid out in all. Afghan officials and villagers have counted 16 dead - 12 in the village of Balandi and four in neighboring Alkozai - and six wounded. The U.S. military has charged Bales with 17 murders without explaining the discrepancy.

The 38-year-old soldier, who is from Lake Tapps, Wash., is accused of using his 9mm pistol and M-4 rifle to kill four men, four women, two boys and seven girls, then burning some of the bodies. The ages of the children were not disclosed in the charge sheet.

Bales is being held in a military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. The mandatory minimum sentence if he is convicted is life imprisonment with the chance of parole. He could also receive the death penalty.

Families of the dead declined to comment on any payments by U.S. officials on Sunday, but some said previously that they were more concerned about seeing the perpetrator punished than money.

Kandahar is the birthplace of the Taliban and remains a dangerous area despite several offensives.

In the latest violence, a bomb struck a joint NATO-Afghan foot patrol in Kandahar's Arghandab district late Saturday, killing nine Afghans and one international service member, according to Shah Mohammad, the district administrator.

Arghandab is a farming region just outside Kandahar city that has long provided refuge for Taliban insurgents. It was one of a number of communities around Kandahar city that were targeted in a 2010 sweep to oust the insurgency from the area.

The Afghan dead included one soldier, three police officers, four members of the Afghan "local police" - a government-sponsored militia force - and one translator, Mohammad said.

NATO reported earlier Sunday that one of its service members was killed Saturday in a bomb attack in southern Afghanistan but did not provide additional details. It was not clear if this referred to the same incident, as NATO usually waits for individual coalition nations to confirm the details of deaths of their troops.

Trayvon Martin, my son, and the Black Male Code

Trayvon Martin, my son, and the Black Male Code

In this Friday, March 23, 2012 photo, Bill Stephney talks to his son Trevor, 13, as they sit outside their home in Randolph Township, N.J. Stephney, a media executive who lives in a New Jersey suburb that is mostly white and Asian, has two sons, ages 18 and 13. The killing of Trayvon Martin was an opportunity for him to repeat a longtime lesson: black men can get singled out, ìso please conduct yourself accordingly.î

In this Friday, March 23, 2012 photo, Bill Stephney talks to his son Trevor, 13, as they sit outside their home in Randolph Township, N.J. Stephney, a media executive who lives in a New Jersey suburb that is mostly white and Asian, has two sons, ages 18 and 13. The killing of Trayvon Martin was an opportunity for him to repeat a longtime lesson: black men can get singled out, ìso please conduct yourself accordingly.

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- I thought my son would be much older before I had to tell him about the Black Male Code. He's only 12, still sleeping with stuffed animals, still afraid of the dark. But after the Trayvon Martin tragedy, I needed to explain to my child that soon people might be afraid of him.

We were in the car on the way to school when a story about Martin came on the radio. "The guy who killed him should get arrested. The dead guy was unarmed!" my son said after hearing that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman had claimed self-defense in the shooting in Sanford, Fla.

We listened to the rest of the story, describing how Zimmerman had spotted Martin, who was 17, walking home from the store on a rainy night, the hood of his sweatshirt pulled over his head. When it was over, I turned off the radio and told my son about the rules he needs to follow to avoid becoming another Trayvon Martin - a black male who Zimmerman assumed was "suspicious" and "up to no good."

As I explained it, the Code goes like this:

Always pay close attention to your surroundings, son, especially if you are in an affluent neighborhood where black folks are few. Understand that even though you are not a criminal, some people might assume you are, especially if you are wearing certain clothes.

Never argue with police, but protect your dignity and take pride in humility. When confronted by someone with a badge or a gun, do not flee, fight, or put your hands anywhere other than up.

Please don't assume, son, that all white people view you as a threat. America is better than that. Suspicion and bitterness can imprison you. But as a black male, you must go above and beyond to show strangers what type of person you really are.

I was far from alone in laying out these instructions. Across the country this week, parents were talking to their children, especially their black sons, about the Code. It's a talk the black community has passed down for generations, an evolving oral tradition from the days when an errant remark could easily cost black people their job, their freedom, or sometimes their life.

After Trayvon Martin was killed, Al Dotson Jr., a lawyer in Miami and chairman of the 100 Black Men of America organization, told his 14-year-old son that he should always be aware of his surroundings, and of the fact that people might view him differently "because he's blessed to be an African-American."

"It requires a sixth sense that not everyone needs to have," Dotson said.

Dotson, 51, remembers receiving his own instructions as a youth, and hearing those instructions evolve over time.

His grandparents told Dotson that when dealing with authority figures, make it clear you are no threat at all - an attitude verging on submissive. Later, Dotson's parents told him to respond with respect and not be combative.

Today, Dotson tells his children that they should always be respectful, but should not tolerate being disrespected - which would have been recklessly bold in his grandparents' era.

Yet Dotson still has fears about the safety of his children, "about them understanding who they are and where they are, and how to respond to the environment they are in."

Bill Stephney, a media executive who lives in a New Jersey suburb that is mostly white and Asian, has two sons, ages 18 and 13. The Martin killing was an opportunity for him to repeat a longtime lesson: Black men can get singled out, "so please conduct yourself accordingly."

Like Dotson, Stephney mentioned an ultra-awareness - "a racial Spidey sense, a tingling" - that his sons should heed when stereotyping might place them in danger.

One night in the early 1980s, while a student at Adelphi University on Long Island, Stephney and about a dozen other hip-hop aficionados went to White Castle after their late-night DJ gig. They were gathered in the parking lot, eating and talking, when a squadron of police cars swooped in and a helicopter rumbled overhead.

"We got a report that a riot was going on," police told them.

Stephney and his crew used to talk late into the night about how black men in New York were besieged by violence - graffiti artist Michael Stewart's death after a rough arrest in 1983; Bernhard Goetz shooting four young black men who allegedly tried to mug him on the subway in 1984; Michael Griffith killed by a car while being chased by a white mob in 1986; the crack epidemic that rained black-on-black violence on the city. They felt under attack, as if society considered them the enemy.

This is how the legendary rap group Public Enemy was born. Their logo: A young black man in the crosshairs of a gun sight.

"Fast forward 25 years later," Stephney said. "We've come a long way to get nowhere."

But what about that long road traveled, which took a black man all the way to the White House? I can hear some of my white friends now: What evidence is there that Trayvon Martin caught George Zimmerman's attention - and his bullet - because of his race? Lynching is a relic of the past, so why are you teaching your son to be so paranoid?

There is a difference between paranoia and protection. Much evidence shows that black males face unique risks: Psychological studies indicate they are often perceived as threatening; here in Philadelphia, police stop-and-frisk tactics overwhelmingly target African-Americans, according to a lawsuit settled by the city; research suggests that people are more likely to believe a poorly seen object is a gun if it's held by a black person.

Yes, it was way back in 1955 when 14-year-old Emmitt Till was murdered in Mississippi for flirting with a white woman. But it was last Wednesday when a white Mississippi teenager pleaded guilty to murder for seeking out a black victim, coming across a man named James Craig Anderson, and running him over with his pickup truck.

Faced with this information, I'm doing what any responsible parent would do: Teaching my son how to protect himself.

Still, it requires a delicate balance. Steve Bumbaugh, a foundation director in Los Angeles, encourages his 8- and 5-year-old sons to talk to police officers, "and to otherwise develop a good relationship with the people and institutions that have the potential to give them trouble. I think this is the best defense."

"I don't want them to actually think that they are viewed suspiciously or treated differently," Bumbaugh said. "I think that realization breeds resentment and anger. And that can contribute to dangerous situations."

His sons are large for their age, however.

"I'm probably naive to think that they won't realize they're viewed differently when they're 6-4 and 200 pounds," Bumbaugh said, "but I'm going to try anyway."

I am 6-4 and more than 200 pounds, son. You probably will be too. Depending on how we dress, act and speak, people might make negative assumptions about us. That doesn't mean they must be racist; it means they must be human.

Let me tell you a story, son, about a time when I forgot about the Black Male Code.

One morning I left our car at the shop for repairs. I was walking home through our quiet suburban neighborhood, in a cold drizzle, wearing an all-black sweatsuit with the hood pulled over my head.

From two blocks away, I saw your mother pull out of our driveway and roll towards me. When she stopped next to me and rolled down the window, her brown face was full of laughter.

"When I saw you from up the street," your mother told me, "I said to myself, what is that guy doing in our neighborhood?"