this jackson pleaded guilty to engage in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places the title of the statute that is the subject of this appeal the narrow issue before the court today is whether the ex post facto clause of the united states constitution bars the prosecution of the defendant when he left the united states before the statutes an act and date that sexually abused three boys on june twenty seventh two thousand and skillful or at least as one judge or i would want to decide on the ex post facto laws argument i think i would have to first construe or interpret the statute to see if that issue is to be read so for example if travelling in foreign commerce includes getting into a cab with some city in asia and going across t with her before we get to the constitutional issue so i don't want to read here or have fled argument but i think you should you should in your argument address the statute is well as the as the ex post facto actually your honor  to travel with respect to twenty four twenty three states and try to make this determination we began by looking at the united states code and we found no definition for travel no that mission for travel on foreign co we step back to say well what is the common understanding of that term when you look in the kitchen area what does travel mean and travel in essence is a journey you start somewhere you go along the way you commerce means that you start of the united states and you go off to somewhere else and you travel to the country you travel back from that country or as the montfort reports suggested you have some con contact with that foreign state but you've got to start the united states first as the position of the government that that travel starts in the u s goes to the foreign place or has contact with that foreign place and does not conclude until one o two things happen one is you return to the united states or you are now for citizenship and the reason for that is that e present the intent element of the predecessor statute twenty four twenty three be and take out that you have to travel without a test and congress said that if that happens the government only has to prove the defense the issue because yours the here's what happens congress is telling us what we want to do to stop americans they don't qualify they say americans for sexually abusing minors in these countries if you put that limitation on  is the congress that if you're there for say five years you can't do this but afterwards it's fair game we can come out and reach you we are not going to come out and beat you you know your argument seems to me to raise a whole  then under this statute the only way you could violate the violate the crime violate that commits the crime is if you molest the child while you're either on the airplane or the chef you have to is there an ex post facto problem if any of the elements of the statute are satisfied after the statute effective date or does it have to be that all the elements of the statu a place to a place right that is correct if i just look at the dictionary and see if someone traveling in foreign farmer's could be there traveling in foreign commerce if they take a subway in tells us what congress intended here do we have to be looking at the travel across the great pacific ocean or or could there be travel across a city i think with respect to this statute if you have to crime is when you are in the affluent place and you sexually abused a minor because saying assuming that travel in foreign commerce within the meaning of the statute means when he went to particularly close attention to the specific choice of words as well as whether these words were used in any other statute which would give light to their meaning when a government and how flows to the actual use of the channel must illicit activity occur but that's not the situation here and that's why i say to the judge a person with all due respect that the court's question actually does not court can can let me kind of break that down in terms of the whole issue of raffles and and the connection to the act first just going to the issue of travels i believe if you look at the legislative observe that travels in foreign commerce does not include the travel from point a to point b in the foreign country or the driver still in my decide in this argument there should be or needs to be some type of relationship we have argued down below some type of close temporal relationships between the between the travel and citizenship and be there without ever having traveled there that's or that's correct i'm assuming that so therefore if you have a person in that situation they've been a u s citizen they're in a foreign country they committed cases in are affecting their almost no cases in because it's very rare that the someone is actually stopped at the border with a gun in his car these are all cases usually involving subsequent possession the problem with the argument presented to the president past tense and that's that if you look within twenty four twenty three sixty and if you look at the other statutes and you see how congress uses travel in those other court limits that with words such as with intent for the purpose of in the course of or in furtherance of we don't have any of that here which suggests that congress was trying to cast a very broad in that they didn't want to put a temporal component to th problems that these countries are having combating sexual tourism combating the abuse of children and congress says that americans are contributing this problem we need to do something about it so i put it that this court that what congress is doing by putting in the phrase traveling commerce is not percent it says that we recognize that this heinous activity having sex with children abusing children molesting them is something that can becomes if you take the narrow definition of travel is what happens if you break up the traffic because if you break up the traffic so say for example i do what mr jackson did i go from sea tac airport to thailand bangkok i stay there for a couple months and then i go to cambodia and your definition of travel travel would only fit for commerce that only consist of that first leg of the journey because if i left from a but you know what if you break up your trip if you make stops along the way we can't touch you if you step back and look at the stash and i've posed this is the right with do it congress is worried about chat congress the to the conclusion that this is travel within the meaning of the statute because it's still maintaining contact with the united states but that's really a fact question is yes rather if what i guess what i'm arguing is if they are the commerce clause component thank you very much mr student we went over time with your colleague from the government's argument if you want a minute of further rebuttal the argument we give it to you but if you don't need it we will