that is what the united states supreme court said in a case going back to wrightman versus malke, in 1964, where the california citizens acted through this process and took away rights with respect to discrimination in housing, and that is what the supreme court said in roehmer versus colorado, that it does make a difference. now i don't think as an original matter that it would be constitutional if congress had enacted proposition 8 five years ago, before the in re marriage cases but i think it makes it worse and that's what the united states supreme court has said, the taking away of the rights in that context enhances the effect of the constitution of the purported constitutional change. >> what's your answer to the case that mr. cooper referred to several times? it's the one about the the bussing and the methods of bringing diverseit to the schools. >> that's the crawford case. >> yes. >> what the crawford case said was to the extent not required by the constitution remedies for constitutional violations could be restricted by the people of the state of california, but that doesn