i'd also like to thank tom goldstein for moderating, and andrew pincus for taking part in this discussion. certainly mayor brown is one of the top of birds in the outfield but i know -- andrew pincus is certainly one of the top supreme court litigators. so i definitely have my work cut out for me here, but fortunately the point i want to make is ultimately very simple, and that is this, there is no way for the supreme court to uphold the individual insurance mandate without simultaneously giving congress the power to enact virtually any other mandates of any kind. and such a result is contrary to the text, history and history of constitution and it's a very dangerous power for congress in a. the federal government has offered three arguments why the the the insurance mandate is within congress' power. they say it's allowed under the commerce clause, the tax clause, and a necessary and proper clause. but all three of these arguments have the same weakness that is accepted by the court, they would lead to virtually unlimited congressional power. so i did like to start out with a commerce cl