and that does not necessarily bode well for mr chang today because the court is familiar with these issues we also and we believe that discussion of them today may aid the core members in assessing a potential on bank vote which may be coming within the next disregarded being with the congressional authority when are passed but over congressional authority with the majority lying basically on the necessary and proper clause of the of article one to a w congress to enact the d n a that the majority reason that because the congress is authorized to criminalize robbery other f t s he bank it is authorized to establish the penalties and supervised release for health clinic in the prison inmate would be something a incarcerated person would have a right to the eighth amendment and that would be to grant a professional authority of the of the provision which would allow them to do that i'm getting at can i say there may be all kinds of administrative things going on in the prison that congress may have to provide for it it wouldn't be punishment but malvo might be kind of understood as being by jason to its power to criminal kind well i would be concerned about that i think i would i would want to look at anything the congress authorizing as far as how it's affecting its citizens will criminal conduct as whether the where the powers coming from i think that dovetail with the we're not going to have health care imprisoned i think that would be unconstitutional and the unconstitutionality of that decision would be based on the eighth amendment i don't think congress has the decision not to fight health can present i don't think it's a decision they're making to do i think it's an obligation the imposition of double jeopardy and those guarantees you could have to the laws due process law etc the legislature may fix the punishment for the crimes it sees fit its powers practically unlimited it may take proper liberty or life it in punishment for an  so i'm not sure how advancing that argument would assist my submission in this matter so if you're not asking for him to withdraw the plea than actually that argument you probably want to withdraw that argument so withdrawn now if i might use our time a couple minutes left i one has asked the court to address whether congress kin regulate something that itself puts in commerce but that's the very issue that's been raised here and the court actually answers that question in lopez  clear that when you get to step two of the presumption against retroactivity it's not a balancing test the congress can overcome that presumption by clear intent three judge agreed there is no such clear intent in the statute the that as presently known are not shown are not known to give a genetic make up whether that will change in the future and how soon as i know but more importantly the three screen court cases do not permit that kind of discounting any retroactive  well control this case except for the rule of an issue which has now been withdrawn i think that that is correct your honor and based on that unless the court has any questions of me the governor would submit that was was one of those things that happens after briefing sometimes you can a lot of effort