a lot of fault with for finding a fact finding a fact your honor that that the statute would be an effective yeah i do think that that if that's one particular argument i do believe the courts may think finding a fact which was a result is a judgment quite quite honestly from that fact alone can be seen as not intended to immediately reduce for the dealers or to in any way to try to drive up prices as they currently are low it's intended to prevent what would be i think  told us just lately in the statute that they were intending to supplement or increase the protection already provided under federal right i have to confess i spent most of my career i'm working to federal statutory materials and arguing about the apartment conversions there are in this valleys all across the country that have an active valid ordinance is sustained by the courts that attempt to protect apartment dwellers from having apartments converted into condominiums for the profit of the owner of the property and in those circumstances there is no observed that and i quote a court should not set aside the determination of officers in such a matter unless it is clear that their action has no foundation in reason and is a clear arbitrary irrational exercise of power having no found that it's late and this is not your problem and not not either is your fault but because of the way the kitchen was done on top of many of these pages has taken off so it's very hard for me or for an and the premium was also the focus of the decision in richardson but this is to actually advance this test and the standard of review that that imposes has a long pedigree wholly apart from cases in which  here i believe would run afoul of the public use requirement of the takings clause to have a statute that the legislature and act in acts of the statute to say we want to take this group of sixty five  hundred fifty lessee dealers in the state of hawaii and keep them in business apart from any good that may do to anyone else we want to protect those people's business i don't see the public use and i'll move on to a different point it's just the right of the i don't mean to cut you off i just i mean i didn't understand probably make myself clear on that point you have these in determining what the state was intending to do here it would be i think improper to and that is why we believe it was appropriate for the district court to consider the overall impact of the statute and of course findings are that it will cause prices to and brand of product and the like i don't believe that's in the record your honor but of course the the the the agreements with the dealers as well as the government statutes would entitle a company to s where there are no such interest involved other takings clause does not apply but where it does apply and that is a specific constitutional provision that is entitle to that that protects the rights of individuals and it is not unheard of for the courts in dealing with a specific constitutional protection of identified rights to demand and to apply a higher level of scrutiny of the state relies upon the commercial speech case which is another area where supporters of applied intermediate scrutiny in those cases the courts have required that there be evidence not merely conjecture trying to add a couple of very quick points to the whole issue that i think it's just fletcher started with about the capture of the previous it was of course the states of contention that whether that might be opinion that was ultimately irrelevant to their purpose the purpose of the they're making more money than they made before it didn't directly burden their property and they really have no business being before federal court saying that this is a taking without just compensation the night circuit has emphasized in the washer legal foundation case which that was affirmed but it's