mr. katyal to answer the question of what purchase the government could not compel under their theory. again, every compelled purchase is economic activity under their theory. every failure to pay down the road has a cost shifting as we just discovered. it may not be cost shifting to insurance, but it's cost shifting to the seller or other consumers of the goods. if they are allowed to create the extraordinarily unprecedented to compel people to engage in economic activity, even to the disadvantage, then it's very difficult to understand why they couldn't, for example, eliminate the restrictions in lopez and morrison. if that doesn't do it, the comprehensive regulation does. >> in morrison there was a provision. there was a comprehensive regulatory scheme in morrison and the supreme court without a severability clause severed a narrow provision. i want to speak of it here. i understand what judge vincent did. he held the act in the unconstitutional. the plaintiffs support that position. assuming for the sake of argument that it were the mandate to be unconstitution nap why could it not