put this berm not everyone in the state interesting because when you look at the debates and you look at what we have in the record setter white who is the defendant here in his official capacity sent out notices to everyone on renewal same look i don't agree with this i think it's wrong i'm a client says this is general revenue i don't think you should be in this class of people with this burden because this is journalism we have the legislature and the only argument in the senate and it supreme court in the trial courts who look to the legislative intent but do we do that excludes i understand the argument that you know clearly the senate the face of hutchinson the dispenser i mean indicated something other than tailored the act when you're exclusively purpose so we are really let's say take the court turn into just the position of the state and the question of the court if in fact we're not adopt us the only statement in the record of legislative intent are these statements by the house or to me by the senate proponent which if you look at pension reform there are very leases specifically contract because of various different fiscal problems and those are the circumstances under which the this is the u s supreme court has talked about the question of whether or not the burden should be more generally shar has not been adequately funded they argue that it is absolutely true that the purpose of this surcharge is to fall into this to help fund the n r it's actually part of a package of a number of different surcharges and it's absolutely true anything can be funded through general revenue through the legislature can as a matter of policy decide two different decisions about how to fund different aspects of government government functions excuse me there are two different relationships like an articulated today one is the one adopted by the circuit court which is that people who have cars are much more likely to visit the parks there are people who don't have cars and those problems of legislative intent with the legislature was very clear that they what they really wanted to do was make sure that d n r had adequate funding and the fact that they were debating whether or not to provide adequate funding through general revenue or through individual eyes more targeted surcharges doesn't change the fact that the overall purpose was to provide adequate funding for  uniform because it's really not a question about legislative intent it's a question about the relationship between the taxing classification and what the money is being used for whether the legislature articulated r which has been the justification we have proposed from the beginning and which players have never challenge other than just saying it's it doesn't count because the legislature was talking about funding mechanisms not  first did not pertain to the adoption of the two dollars charge an issue that's actually not accurate in the debates pertain to a package of eighteen or so surcharges including the surcharge issues here like giddily created their own argument they didn't say there is anything in the legislation in publications anything at all they have no verb to yes or they do resent the evidence they have to present an argument o it taste it says that every case of there is no case that says a reaction basis is created in this way we invite the court to do it here in this decision the reaction of bases can be created for the first a they know or where they're not supposed to violate some form the constitution their base their constitutional challenge worthless an exercise in futility and as the supreme courts and when it turns us into a even if the legislature in this league violins the portion the constitution what you heard today was assume for the sake of argument they chose to fund general revenue by a surge or once you get they are the problem