argument was a series of cases that you guys know about from the 1930s, most notably wi wickard against fillburn, congress can get at people who substantially affect interstate commerce and regulate people who are only selling or involved in a small amount of wheat and that's the famous case. and our point was that wickard did say you could get at people only producing a small amount of wheat. what it didn't say was that you could require americans to buy wheat. that people who are in the market, even though in at a local level, are analogous to local bootleggers and congress's power to regulate the interstate liquor market allows them to get a local bootleg. what it doesn't alew them to get is local -- not in the market, possibly adversely affect market participants. it's going to be the same as it was. you're in no way engaged in the type of activities for congress to regulate local people like wicker. the government's -- even if you don't negatively affect comme e commerce, you affect commerce regulation. this plan, this act won't work unless we constrict all these healthy people into buy ins