good morning everyone welcome i think we can say that they were cognizant of for all i don't know for certain about that i would say though that congress stated away for the states to opt out they were clear about that and all of the states were going to legislature wanted to do what they intended to do isn't a proper question of whether or not they complied with the federal law as required by the really bad goes back to my original question whether it's the fee two statutes will impact me i compliance with the definition of affirmatively providing in other and they're defining affirmative as expressed basically but let me ask you this you have a situation where congress could have said express could have said specific and for whatever reasons chose the word affirmative and then you have a situation where the state legislature could have sat expressly that we are not that we may be covering people who are in the country illegally but instead said non citizens not otherwise eligible and delegated to the department be right or the power to include people who are not in the country legally so it seems to me that th sides made decisions about the word choice both the congress and the state legislature and wouldn't you say under these circumstances that  a i know you say not important what the legislature intended to do that it's only what they did do we can start at least with the baseline that they clearly intended to cover people who are not in the country for example the all kids came about in two thousand and six so we're now we're talking about ten years after that all fifteen twenty one was passed so i don't know i can't say for certain what they're ahead while i think we get into the for people in the country illegally isn't and i would suspect with you know it's not why would they delegate them the authority to do something that they don't want done why a political body a legislature would not wish to blame can really use words such as illegal immigrants in the context of providing that it's but nevertheless sought out the provision of those benefits without creating the political will the sanction that might otherwise ensue but they all there's a there's a quote in legislative history from one representative that you mention it's so was discussed but they didn't use that and it's a phrase that it's a word that can hundred ninety six with possibly the thinking that when you pass these pieces of legislation you want considering whether to cover aliens in the country illegally therefore we're going are not them off the hook and we're going to say you must pass new legislation with that in mind with that affirmative statement  that there is coverage for certain classes of people in the country illegally and the question is is having gotten that direction from the federal government and having met passed new enabling legislation that says all children is that not a affirmative statement that they are complying with bad statute and saying when i see all children i mean simply all children and you have told us that our previous enabling statutes have to be redone with what people and bodies meant to do and what it should have done it should have done and i think when we look at it like that we really need to come back to what the plain language is and that's really the first step here and the plain language requires that the bought a certain or some as your son our grief all the boring that's out there points to our position that it needs to either service specify or express or state or something particularly about illegal aliens or some other comparable phrase that need to be illegal  you just need some powerful break i think the point is to put the public on notice that this is what's going on and to her legislators accountable for that decision obviously a controversial issue and having legislator and then he left it to courts to decide the meaning of the fuzziness on both sides because we can all agree that if it expressly said express then we wouldn't be having this argument overridden only a few nail us to the wall and what would be that purpose that's neither fish phone if they're letting the states make a decision why would it have to be done was a forcing the odd choice of language used in the state legislation provide do it but they were adequately letting the public know what was going on and what the federal purpose is of those that so i call i think it serves the purpose of restricting the  enough that you have to implement it through the use of certain language and what federal function that would serve or suffer serve federals is kind of i'm not sure i understand your question i'm not sure but all we can go on is what what the plain language is in the plain language used the word affirmatively and with respect to illegal alien eligibility and that's right that's what i language the interpretation that it needs to simply provide a clear indication of intent given that choice what i is a choice here the federal language used to work for ridley we need to figure out what the word from really means and all the authority that's out there that's addressed this issue uses the word either search or specify or used so again i look at what's out there all the authority out there supports our position on if i'm not mistaken the  court was just saying if it doesn't become crucial to the decision because they're going the way the recipients are in any event the reason we you know we have this theory of  and over to them is because we have to attach less significance to statements you know unions that are not crucial to the situation that is being made partly because it may not have been looked at closely enough because it wasn't the basis of the decision in the first place and as justice court pointed out in the martinez case it clearly was not they could they could accept the express meaning and still go exactly the way they were going to go otherwise it would be it would be more compelling authority although still not binding  had they had had that been a critical decision or unnecessary decision in terms of the way they have eventually came out and we all understand yeah i agree i would agree with that  us here or encourages us to look at the legislative history of the congressional legislation i don't think you should be looking at the history in terms of the status of the conference report because i think the language is clear and pla face affirmative means positive i don't think there's any real debate about this and that when it doesn't require specific are expressed and the language such as all children or certainly not citizens not otherwise they allowed immunizations they allowed emergency care they allowed treatment for communicable diseases so congress wasn't intent on on banning all benefits they wanted but they did want states to be program and the op it's programs if it's squarely within that congressional purpose i mean moms babies provide prenatal care to mothers so the babies will be born healthy i don't think there's any question that you know fifty dollars worth of folic acid can prevent thousands of thousands of dollars in it in money being spent on premature births or birth defects and remember the baby we're still a civilized country to the extent that  under certain section if they affirmatively provide for such eligibility to take out affirmatively from that and you have they may do it if they provide program the moms and babies program and let me kind of step back a little bit because a lot of these programs are often more or less labels for of different levels of eligibility that when they're almost sort of marked there's a general medicaid program you know one in illinois and then there's the supplement that was passed the children's health insurance program that provides medicaid provides benefits up to one hundred thirty three percent the children's health insurance cell but again that doesn't necessarily defeat the federal language the purpose of the statute that allows states that the discretion to decide how it went to provide benefits to unlaw yeah i ask this question is is it necessary in the context here is is that the t court found that there was not basically reasonable grounds for the suit and the night the right to or deny permission to file the proposed complaint isn't it possible for us to say that there are reasonable grounds for filing it without deciding the issue here about the meaning of the statute i don't see how you do that well i mean we're having a situation where we are arguing about the are you arguing about the meaning of affirmative and if we were standard that was applied below is a statement by the court that there are no reasonable grounds to allow the filing a lawsuit and if there is if there is a statement of lesser reach by the court at this stage which would simply be you know you have a right to make that argument isn't that something that programs are people who are using the programs or what the motivation for people illegal aliens are using the program what the motivation was for coming to this country what it is for to call a legal aliens to language used by the legislature he sufficient to fill not the filing of the proposed complaint yes i think it would be a call for a couple of points  to that group negative because it's a clear indication of yes o again i don't think we can look at it hand in hand i think we need to look at how congress required the opt out provision to be satisfied and here they required not a template for a statement that illegal aliens or some other comparable phrase would be eligible for sixteen time why does it say that they have to say that they will be covered but that they may be covered and isn't that exactly the power that was delegated by the legislature to the department saying euphemistically for the federal government to be concerned as to which branch of state government makes the decision as long as it is a legally binding see both sides have done just a splendid job with their briefs and their arguments it's been very well presented case and we will take it under advisement and issue a ruling to course the current