it's trying to get a kind of good kind of product that it's mixed in terms of there's some printing involved and then there's some products involved and that's you know in a broad sense what we have here we have a mixture of printing as well as product how how should the executive branch agency go about trying to decide in that kind of broad category of things whether it should go over to the g p o or not thank you your honor and i just believe that this question is central to they feel at hand because what we're looking at here is a product that is is fairly common compared to other products that a government agency could seek to obtain that for example if you had a fire extinguisher which would also come with instructions and the printing on the fire extinguisher itself obviously that includes  agency would be considered as having a mix of both printing components and fly and the end item should be what is considered to determining whether or not the printing mandate applies now with respect indicate a what that prior difficulty was or b why there would have been such an issue with the v a obtaining all of the products the product as a whole itself another important interaction here is looking at the interplay of the federal acquisition important but because they're similar to the belmont in the sense that the printed element is particularly important because you need to know how to function to use that if these were to go through the printing office the result is that the federal acquisition regulation and its robust requirements includes both the printing elements and a nonsense you know laments st of all the overarching purpose and and item should be what is considered when in which agencies should be preparing the item and then nd if there is a initiation i believe that yes again but i believe that the more important in korea is that the next step is an illustration in terms of how you properly categorize any particular acquisition and then they said as you mentioned your honor is dependent on in large part what the ultimate cost is of the item what is the biggest component cost wise and in this particular instance one dollar or is not in this instance in any instance once an acquisition goes to the government printing office the government printing should have happened here is that when the v a had initially identified the need for gunlock including a printing element it should have looked at the acquisition and determine whether or not it was printing if it was not printing if ultimately the item sought to be a pain was a gun l suggesting that the printing mandate is limited as a matter printed matter only to documentary try publications that are relevant to the internal suicide prevention materials complied with all statutes and regulations and had a rational basis veterans for use appeal focuses on some superficial tension between the rule of loose the rule of the printing mandate applies and whether the v a followed section eight thousand one hundred and twenty seven i veterans for you and the amakosa argue that the printing mandate doesn't apply here despite the fact that there is obvious printing involved in this particular mine because they argue that the printing man message is combined with a functional object but there is no support for this argument in the text of section five hundred and one or the joint committee on printings regulations here the v a is not buying goods gun locks for consumption by the v a it's publishing a message to veterans this particular moment was for a package of suicide prevention messages an important message on a printed wallet card printed message on a gun lock and the gun lock itself  themselves what if we disagree with you as to what the overall character is of the product that's been procured here and wonder if we see it a there's a functional device here which happens to have some printing that goes along with it printing is important and just like any other element of the contract solicitation it's an essential element but there are all essential elements and nevertheless something's wrong here in saying that this is somehow a printing dominant type of product printing could have adopted a regulation that evaluates the extent of the printing based on relative cost or weight or size of of the printing versus the non printing elements but there is no such regulation and instead the joint committee on printing as promulgated a regulation that establishes a patchwork of exceptions most significant  regulation we're talking about the joint committee on printings regulations which are government printing and binding regulations that were published by the joint committee on printing or to somebody in the joint i hear anything that i can read i'm sorry there were tw really published in the joint appendix in their entirety but i can refer your honor we have in our brief the reference to the website where they are available online and i can tell you your honor that your honor is that there are exceptions for example and section forty nine dash two of the  joint committee on printings regulations bad particular months that have printing under five hundred dollars per line item are not subject to the mandate so there is essential to minimize exception if you know you're doing a particular moment and there's a tiny printing component that's less than five hundred dollars and the joint committee on printing their regulations establish that that does not have to go through the g p o what the the argument by the am a kiss and veterans for you is that the court should disregard the exceptions such as the why identified that the joint committee on printing the entities charged with establishing regulations in this is not consistent either with the regulations in a fact or the standard of review it is veterans for use burden and there's been protests to demonstrate a clear violation of law and there is an where where on page thirty five of our brief entire executive branch and was essentially you know whatever tension exists between the printing mandate and the separation of powers principles the executive branch resolved as tension and one with the printing mandate so that was the instruction to the executive branch the executive branch with full knowledge and consideration of the o l c opinion notwithstanding that decided that they wanted to do that which the printing mandate would require in promulgating far eight o two so there is a separate source of positive authority that required the agency that was passed on this past the last connection with this particular presidential election only certain votes would be suggesting that the printing mandate itself that there's something unconstitutional about it separate and apart from the fact that it is a the legislative branch ordering the executive branch to do its printing in a certain way and here while there are there is certainly a fascinating question addressed in the o o c opinion about whether and to what extent but the legislative branch order the executive branch to perform its printing through the legislative branch we don't even need to reach to not have to reach the constitution the issue of a constitutional the dimension because the constitutional issue is whether the legislature can order the executive branch to follow the printing mandate and hear the executive branch chose to follow the printing mandate thus obviating the need for any resolution of the concern in the o o c opinion and i know i know but i'm asking you a question nevertheless i mean my understanding of the legislative branch has the powers under the constitution to decide legislative powers and likewise for the executive branch there's supposed to stay in their lane and an exercise executive powers and it seems a little peculiar now we break down those clear boundaries and start having different subsection well then getting back to the printing mandate and judge clevenger questions about constitutional avoidance let's say there is a way to read the printing mand when it talks about printing and binding and blank book making as in that context understanding printing as really being about printing documents  therefore we come to a result where printing mandate is at least narrowly understood and therefore would like not cover functional goods like this and likewise you somehow construe printing is not printing for purposes of this case is an untenable reading of the statute and the the only constitutional question is whether congress could order the executive branch to do do this and this in this fashion the executive branch has chosen to deal with in this fashion because of the farce so there really is no constitutional issue but in terms of the  statute statutory language itself there are three separate things listed in printing bookbinding black blank book making those are three separate things and there's no serious printing has stablished that the threshold is five hundred dollars per line item and for whether the printing mandate applies so do you have any other any other argument to raise against the amicus is you that it is enough just to be pretty would have to be put in the documentary or governmental publication nature elements and to find them to establish some sort of bright line rule where the joint committee on printing decided not to draw down and so i would just respectfully submit your honor that the is an invitation for the court to to reregulate an area that has already been regulated matter is not as as your honour's of pointed out something that one branch of government can consent to a violation of the separation of powers if there is a violation to the separation of powers then there is a violation the separation of powers and anything promulgated and far a point is irrelevant also under the doctrine of constitutional void in any court has an obligation to interpret a statute to avoid any constitutionality problem reiterated several times in the government's argument that the printing mandate is broad sweeping and it should have a broad application however this presents the exact problem that is supposed to be obviated by the doc constitutional boyden by having literally any particular moment that includes some elements of printing subject to the printing mandate creates the constitutionality problem and this particular acquisition is very problematic by the court of federal claims was the broad sweeping nature there are many reasons for considering the constitutionality issue here but in particular by the court of federal slayings having such a broad ruling in the application of the printing