anywhere in the federal criminal code that i could find or that the government could find reporting tool regulate the channels of either interstate or foreign commerce or it simply doesn't do so and it's primarily for that reason that we think so are you that this statute as interpreted by the government and the lower court is beyond the outer limits or that congress is power to regulate the channels of commerce particularly with the one prong foreign commerce power you are i haven't found a single case involving a criminal statute with the supreme court as well as address this issue i have not found any criminal statute which has been struck down under the foreign commerce power but on the other hand there are no statutes that we have that either side is found which purports to practices act and i recognize that doesn't rely on an airplane getting the person from the u s to the foreign country to do the bride but it seemed to me to have sturm inerrancy because  that that i'm interested in hearing from you one should that thing test apply in foreign commerce like it does in interstate commerce that's one question i have and then the second is even though the district materials that were submitted that i saw the government claimed it was more difficult to get a conviction if you had to prove a purpose or intent to engage in this activity but i did not see anything that any evidence that they actually this felt it was too hard they didn't want to put the energy into him into that prosecution and even if that were the case even if it was more difficult to bring a prosecution under twenty four twenty three the court or the congress has t first find a basis upon which it has the power to pass the statute it shows the channels of commerce prong and in choosing that chron i think the case should be analyzed under the case law that that applies and i think we don't have much case law on the syria we do have circuit law brittleness case we have the coming scase which involves international kidnapping but of kidnapped so to speak and retained in the country and he can't get back on the plane and come home to the us this statute does the absolute it says we're here using foreign commerce to facilitate case the government has in the past taken the position that they could prosecute those cases they have in fact prosecuted a case another case that's now pending before this court in which the defendant traveled before the effective date of the statute  when the purported basis for the exercise of commerce clause jurisdiction is simply not there in other words you know the gun in the school yard you know frankly has such an attenuated connection  crafts you know that we crop or whatever crop you have and i think in that area congress and it was also part of a broader scheme of legislation in that area congress has the broadest its broadest powers under the commerce clause and lopez you're dealing with example to foreign commerce that is one that we're familiar with correct yes ok so if you had to write the rule or the holding in this case from your perspective what would be the  distinct analytical vehicles that congress can choose from that there must be some interference impediment with a channel of commerce or must be some bad purpose or intent that occurs while the person is actually travelling in the channel of commerce consistent with with all of the multitude of statutes that both parties decided that have been of help previously involving channels of commer it must do so under some other basis of the constitution which is which it is not identified only one other feature of the constitution is while this court has to respect congress and its decisions i think that the court all should respect grounds my first position on that was would be that congress should be the one to identify that in the first instance because perhaps they wouldn't want to use that particular power to pass this statute for example ar broad statement that the federal government can exercise no power except those specifically enumerated in the constitution and implied powers as are necessary improper to carry  categorically true only with respect to internal affairs and it's the government's position your honor that there it is the hardest that congress has much broader powers  dealt with matters completely internal to the states and i think that is a very big distinction here this is a situation where congress is regulating  back to the constitution when it talks about commerce with foreign nations we've now short handed that this thing with foreign commerce i guess but it does the commerce with foreign nation is the only commerce here to be light on the airplane in this particular case your honor i think that the commerce here in a broader sense certainly that the would have to travel in interstate commerce that we could pass a law that basically says anyone who commits a crime overseas that would be a crime in the us is guilty of the same crime in the u in terms of the power of carvers to do that i think the answer is yes stronger in terms of the wisdom of whether or not harm is would have any interest in doing so and that is that entirely separate legislative matter i think the interest in i've paraphrasing now and it's i don't remember the exact quote but there is language in the brief legislative history that talks about other countries planing and americans and holding americans responsible for their citizenry so i think in who goes to hong kong and stays for two and a half years american citizen doing business over there flies over their own united airlines and then takes a private sale boom him berea will they be prosecuted under the statute well your honor this obviously is not that case but having said that i think the answer to your question is yes i think there's two ways that one that this court can look at travel and i country and moved to a foreign country there remains there for a period of time then american citizen is in fact continuing to travel whether or not they are calling it a residen in that country or not let me if you would for example mr clark in this case certainly intended to be residing in cambodia had an apartment there and lived there over a period of time evidence in this case although i don't remember where the break is that he actually does take commercial flights later but certainly only after he left the united states you think there needs to be any temporal connection between the i mean i do think that if you're taking the broad view of travel where that that's true met no matter how long the individual is outside of the united states of course there is the temple connection but if you're talking about the narrow view that