as i was saying to judge motz that, is a virtually universal feature of human existence. everyone is going to seek health care. nobody can know precisely when. providers can't opt out of providing it. if you show up destitute, there is still a duty to treat. and it's sporadic and unknowable. this makes this market different than some of the fancyful things. >> you have gone beyond the initial step, first, before we get to the participating health care saying i guess you don't need at this point, basically making a choice as to whether you're going to get health insurance and the characterization there is that is an inactivity to require someone to do something they don't have to do, that is to get insurance is a characterization. the issue there as opposed to the choice for whether to participate in the system. >> i guess maybe the best way of putting our arguments is we're not focusing on inactivity or activity. those words they eventually can break down semantically. we're asking what the commerce clause is about. we're asking does the conduct that is being regulated ha

isn't that what judge motz is asking you to address? >> no. i would say what that would be is congress forcing wickard to consume wheat. >> really? >> congress forcing anyone to consume the pick of the product because it's good for the market and it props up prices and it's more healthy and would relieve stress on health care. that is an unprecedented reach of the commerce clause will congress would force individuals to actually purchase or consume a particular product as opposed to -- >> you care a lot more about due process than we ever heard anything about commerce clause in a forced-eat case. >> your honor, i would suggest that we haven't heard about that because it's beyond the outer reach of the constitution. it's certainly something -- >> i appreciate -- i want to be sure i understand what you're saying, though. you acknowledge that a prohibition on trans fats would not violate the commerce clause? or a prohibition -- >> perhaps in a situation where they are regulating the producers and the distributors of it to take it off the market,

as judge motz mentioned, they will have to bridges debate in a scheme that would otherwise be exempt out of -- participate in the scheme that they would otherwise be exempt out of. >> [unintelligible] >> in wilford there is no challenge to the law. they just wanted to be exempt. they did not challenge the authority of congress. they just wanted to be exempt. they as individuals wanted to be exempt from the application where it is the clear the challenge is a special challenge to a component of this law, the mandate. it would not apply to anyone else. >> so, actually to my original question -- as a challenge to the original mandate? >> yes. >> thank you very much. >> next house speaker john boehner's commencement address at catholic university followed by first lady michelle obama at the university of northern iowa. after that, a discussion of americanism in today's culture. next house speaker john boehner delivers the commencement address to the graduating class of catholic university in washington d.c. he also received an honorary doctorate in law did agree. -- doctorate in law degr