so employers, nowc one, are not likely to be -- so employers, number one, are not likely to be aggrieved by it, in a sense they're not likely to feel the need to sue. and number two, if they were to try to sue, they wouldly have a very difficult times, it seems for me, establishing in a court of law the fact that they had suffered an injury in fact. supplwho else might do it? most constitutional scholars would conclude, probably correctly, that a member of congress would lack article 3 standing under the applicable supreme court precedent, plunder flas v. quo men and other supreme court precedents. merely being a member of congress is not necessarily enough to give a person article 3 standing. and so i think it's very difficult to reach the conclusion that anyone at least obviously has article 3 standing to sue. so we can't necessarily rely on the courts to be able to undo this constitutional damage, to be able to seek an adequate remedy in a court of law for this blatant insult to the united states constitution. even if they could, mowfer more, even if somebody could get standing and co