First, on the suggestion that you've had a number of witnesses who suggested that the bill is unconstitutional, I haven't followed your proceedings or read the blues or anything like that, but I am not surprised that people would come with a different point of view and suggest that there is a constitutional issue that will result in litigation and a constitutional challenge. I would suggest that this is not an issue. None of the issues that you have raised are straightforward. It's not science. We cannot say ipso facto that because there is an infringement there is necessarily going to be a court striking down or not sustaining the legislation.
What I would be curious about is the way in which these individuals have addressed the question, because they have found that there is a violation and they would then have to pass on to the second question, of whether or not the legislation can be capable of reasonable justification in accordance with the standards that govern a free and democratic society. That, I believe, is where much of the—