ok mr hatch whatever time you need to get settled  statute is unconstitutional under the commerce clause as applied to this case and second whether carjacking is a crime of violence as defined under section one twenty four c three carjacking this circuit has alluded to carjacking is constitutional under the commerce clause argument it is different today our argument is that the fifty carjacking statute is unconstitutional there is no evidence that the carjacking in this case had any connection to commerce or an economic at a price number two the evidence really didn't address what jurisdictional elements to govern the group in that case other than to just say that statute has a jurisdictional element and that was it  rational findings were however regardless of what they do congressional findings were relating to the carjacking case i don't think that established that a rational basis exist our position is that once it was once it was brought to texas and sold to the consumer that removed it from from commerce that the effects it's it's been held in the context of fair labor standards other than that but not in any criminal not in a nice way not in any criminal case that i'm aware of however i would know that this arson statute is different from from the carjacking but it essentially applied to the use of anything in interstate commerce or any action of fact in interstate commerce now the facts in that case were a little bit disturbing it's it more than a little bit disturbing to two parters up in california decided they wanted to try to assassinate a judge by blowing a pick up truck not going to i'm sorry not a good thing not you kno not the government attempted to establish jurisdiction by showing that the judge's truck that was the target of this attempted murder of the because it wasn't really articulated in this way would they have a chance to put on evidence at some other it or would you discount just be completely dismissed the i'm wondering would they have a chance to put on evidence in this particular circumstance there is some kind of commerce or did they already have their chance and it's over  don't know if they would have another bite of the apple but there are other facts that i think that if they could prove would establish a connection to interstate commerce like i mentioned previously what happened to the shown by the government categorically that activity as a whole always affects interstate commerce so there's no way that they could be removed from interstate commerce commerce after the fact under  the challenges are for ever far in the circuit you know we need that we don't need them we don't need them i think you're arguing for that well i think the court essentially said that in harris i think that that the principle of law already interstate commerce that isn't enough so we phrase it as a mass of quiet work out of a broad will either way the rule of law prevails we don't need to get into the nitty gritty of every case in the facts of every case if the defendant like in this case will plead guilty and it's my understanding and their cases the gun where carjacking case brought in michigan car never left michigan motion to dismiss granted because as a statutory element on this required that the car be shipped receiver transported interstate this motions to dismiss on that very ground so like in alabama or something where they have a car manufacturing plants they may have this kind of gas or but we don't know that we have we have that next we do in arlington  probably would dedicate our limited resources to that case and again district courts have granted motions to dismiss on the ground that in addition to harris i'd like to speak more broadly about the arguments being made the arguments being made focuses on the items transport following elements that is carjacking that is within our congressional power to regulate in a e commerce that's what the government proved here and the final thing i'll say about this point is if this argument works correctly i don't see how clude it that way on the come to trial and say see if you held that card yacking does not have as an element that would create a circus blabs a name and so if we were to reach the merits of that part of the violence and a nine twenty four c has concluded that carjacking of course is a crime of violence and it's done so under siege three and the elements because that's evidence in the fourth circuit and in ray smith in the  a really thorough analysis of carjacking in that case but the majority seems to give a lot of weight to the congressional findings however the dissent in that case written by  a motion to dismiss the like case we cited several different studies that came to opposite opposite conclusions from congress so that there is some debate i would say submission and