constitutional arguments even in your expanded more detailed discussion in your brief you don't actually play that out i mean it's not that it taking is unconstitutional the takings clause actually  permits congress or the you know the united states to take property with just compensation so how would your theory of the takings clause violation apply here in the context of the c b m review at all well because the same exact thing is happening your honor you've got no no but explain it to me there's a test for takings causes there's two different kinds of taken is that maybe even more and and you get a certain type of relief what relief do i'm sorry i don't understand well i don't understand what you're talking about because the takings clause against the united states means that you're arguing the united states is taking your property without just compensation and you're asking for that compensation case with a legal theory that has shown a takings clause is a defense to an agency action rather than the theory i just described which is where almost every other takings clause case against the united states goes i can't give you a  mean your repeated reference of this takings clause theory in multiple briefs without any explanation without any citation to a legal authority that would allow that to be applied in a pita case becomes a very very close to being  i'm just going to warn you i don't think i'm going to need to be asserting that very many more times here now your due process claim may have some more legitimate are going to tell though again i don't know what your theory is because you don't cite any kind of t  could assert or the opposing counsel could assert a one on one argument with a lower standard of proof that change the quid pro quo of the system and that what's the task i mean again you agree that congress has been permitted d over the years to enact legislation that has retroactive application without violating the due process clause right right not every retroactive application i unconstitutional what's the test to determine whether it did it falls into that constitutional line or unconstitutional line well your honor i can't cite the case to you right now again i mean you're you're really pushing the boundaries by repeatedly referencing in very short hand fashion these up and these arguments without giving us any explanation whatsoever to how they apply here and you know  you're getting them rejected out of hand in the last two trading technology cases for not effectively preserving them but you know it becomes a problem at a certain point when you just throw something out there news suggested we have to decide this issue without giving us any explanation of what your argument is while your honor with all the respect on the earlier cases the court the court just found that we the only problem they had was that we the argument even though in those earlier cases we did have an argument in our blue group the federal circuit allowed the government to file an additional brief and then the federal circuit allowed us to file up thirty or forty sure retailers are not you don't preserve arguments by putting a one or two paragraphs placeholder and and and saying oh d we have this possible argument and then forcing the government or the other side to respond full family and then you getting a thirty page reply brief and you may have put four paragraphs in this time is that it too but you still haven't been able to articulate eight sufficiently detailed legal theory and you haven't done it today that argument well your honor if you would like to submit no i would like you to putting in a two paragraph placeholders or poor paragraph placeholders and then when we ask you to distinguish park d cases claiming a supplemental letter that those are detailed discussions i mean you wrote that letter right that said you had a detailed discussion of constitutional law in your brief if you ask a st year associate to give you a detailed memo on this issue do you think your paragraphs would cut it at the get it depends on what the issue well don't you think it would at least require a description of the test and how it applied to the case at hand can you point to me in your brief in your d blue any of your blueberries here where you actually described the test and how it applied to the cases at hand well as i said your honor we provide no thanks do you want to talk about the merits or have we basically discussed all the same issues with regards to unless you have any questions on the mer thanks miss nelson since he is not talking about the merits unless you really want to talk i think what could miss allen do you want to briefly address the constitutional issue can you st address the takings clause are you aware of any kind of case where the takings clause is used as a defense to an agency action and we didn't make that argument because in horn versus department of agriculture and the supreme court allowed two for that takings argument to be used and set defense to an agency action but how would that how would that play out then would it make the agency action lawful or would it just mean that they could see for him and we haven't briefed horn but that just into my mind that's the most the closest case and i apologize for that i don't have to know what happened in oregon did they find the agency action unconstitutional i'm not sure what that merits show