Supreme Court

Wheat, Weed, and ObamaCare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful

|

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce . . . among the several States," and for more than 100 years federal lawmakers invoked it for a very narrow purpose—to prevent states from imposing trade barriers on each other. But today members of Congress act as if it gives them the authority to do just about anything—including forcing you to eat your vegetables.

During her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan seemed to accept that the Commerce Clause could, in theory, give Congress the power to dictate what Americans eat. And what about ObamaCare's "individual mandate," which forces Americans to purchase health insurance? ObamaCare opponents are lining up to challenge its constitutionality, but supporters say it's justified—you guessed it—under the Commerce Clause.

How did a clause intended as a restriction on states wind up giving Congress a green light to regulate noncommercial, local, and purely private behavior?  How will ObamaCare stand up against the legal challenges brought by the states? Legal titans John Eastman (Chapman University Law Professor) and Erwin Chemerinsky (Founding Dean, University of California, Irvine School of Law) slug it out to to determine whether or not Congress has been abusing the commerce clause.

Produced by Austin Bragg.  Approximately 10 minutes.

Visit Reason.tv for HD, iPod, and audio versions of all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

NEXT: Billionaire Welfare-Queen Liars

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. These videos haven’t been very male gaze-friendly lately.

    1. Because Reason is complicit in the structures of hegemony imposed by the Eurocentric patriarchy and its strategies of domination.

    2. Yeah, this video won’t load at all for me here or on YT itself. :-/

  2. Justice Clarence Thomas-

    “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything?and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”

    Just posting this now for posterity.

    1. That, plus the sinister music, plus the old guy in the three-piece suit:

      I felt a chill go through my soul.

    2. And Chemerinsky, that shitheel, is fine with that. He’s so fucking wrong.

    3. The Founders’ fatal flaw, Constitutionally, was their failure to separate business and state the way they successfully separated church and state.

        1. They could have done it with two little words:

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or trade, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          1. Do you seriously think the liberals wouldn’t still have some bullshit “living document” theory on that one?

            1. Just a quick note – it says “congress shall make no law”.
              So then congress just makes ‘independent government branches’ that carry the same power, yet operate in a manner only answerable to the senate oversight committee. Entities like the CIA, Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission etc are all created by congress yet are not forced to be answerable to it in the same manner other programs are. Once created, this independence separates them from the judicial legislature called congress, thus circumventing this completely.

    4. The government(we) can do anything it wants to.

  3. There is no slugging out necessary.

    Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the nonimporting, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged. – James Madison

    It’s right there from the hand of the man known as the “Father of the Constitution”. Anyone who disputes what the Commerce Clause means is either ignorant, or in the case of Supreme Court Justices who are no doubt familiar with what Madison had to say, a liar.

    1. James Madison = Racist dead white guy.

      Now kneel before Zod The Commerce Clause.

    2. “or in the case of Supreme Court Justices who are no doubt familiar with what Madison had to say”

      Sorry: You cannot assume that they have read the relevant legal history. They don’t need to. They cannot be removed — for life — no matter what they do not know or understand.

      1. “life” is a fragile thing.

    3. Read Federalist 41. Chemerinsky’s full of shit.

    4. rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

      what the fuck does that mean?

  4. The reason that Kagan didn’t reject the premise is that the logical implications would cause her entire house of cards to fall apart.

    1. Speaking of Kagan, she sure does look a lot like John Eastman.

      1. My wife believes Kagan is really just Jon Lovitz in drag.

        1. or not in drag?

        2. Or Arnold when he gets to Mars in Total Recall.

          1. Or the kid from “Two and A Half Men”.

    2. The sad thing is she had to think how to answer such a simple question.

      1. She had to think about how *not* to answer it. Answering it was easy.

  5. It was fun to watch that idiot Chemerinsky try to justify why Congress can’t force you to eat certain foods.

    “But they’d never do THAT. That’s just silly.”

    Screw you Chemerinsky.

    1. This dick lick is a perfect example of why it takes no brains to be a lawyer. The American people are so stupid they think if some shit-for-brains lawyer says something it must be true or just…no matter how stupid it is. American people want someone else to think for them, so they can watch American Idol.

      1. The more I am in the legal profession the more I realize that being a lawyer is mastering the art of making horribly stupid things look smart.

        1. + 1 mega-geithner

        2. Good for you. Why the hell are you a lawyer?

          1. It pays the bills.

            1. Now I feel bad for you. You are in a profession you aren’t fond of. And it appears you prove me wrong about ALL lawyers.

              1. Don’t feel too bad for me. And there are some parts of the law I like. And intellectually the law can be interesting. But the profession and the people in it suck. I hate my bosses. And can barely tolerate many of my co-workers. And I find my job dreadfully boring.

                If Obama hadn’t declared war on the economy, I would have left it a while ago.

                1. Don’t feel too bad for me. And there are some parts of the law I like. And intellectually the law can be interesting. But the profession and the people in it suck. I hate my bosses. And can barely tolerate many of my co-workers. And I find my job dreadfully boring.

                  Huh. So it seems we might have more in common than I initially thought.

            2. It pays the bills.

              So does selling children on the black market. That doesn’t make it ok.

              1. Selling children on the black market is what lawyers tell people they do, so as not to be ostracized.

          2. Self governance requires contract that can be read understood and executed by all parties.

            Those contracts require lawyers.

            I was talking to my Kuwaiti brother-in-law and he said he hated doing business with the British.
            The reason why is that unlike Americans they can fuck you while Americans, even if they do not like you, can’t because if they do they can be sued.

            1. “Self governance requires contract that can be read understood and executed by all parties.
              Those contracts require lawyers”

              Lawyers are needed to help you to understand those contracts before entering into them and to represent you in the event that there is a problem in the fulfilling of said contracts.

              1. Lawyers are needed to help you understand the legalese inserted by said lawyers into contracts for the purposes of making what used to be simple transactions profitable.

                What’s even more disconcerting is that it all means nothing anyway.

                See for yourself – Chemerinsky argues that the government could force you to masturbate in public three times a day.

                People like that populate the legal system, and there’s no oversight.

    2. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t get a warm fuzzy feeling with the assurance government “will never do that”

      Also, what a douche

    3. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t get a warm fuzzy feeling with the assurance government “will never do that”

      Also, what a douche

  6. Dean Chemerinsky looks like the poster child for what is wrong with the state of California.

    He defines the commerce clause that horribly and he’s a DEAN OF A LAW SCHOOL????

    Good lord.

    1. The fact that Reason described that douche as a “legal titan” is disturbing.

      1. Think they meant “legal twit”.

      2. ‘Legal titan’ has no positive implication. It just means he has a lot of influence.

        1. This quote- “What we put in to our bodies really is part of our freedom. But it’s not a freedom to not have medical care.”

          How is this man a Dean of a law school? That has to be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. It has to have been edited or something, he can’t possibly be that stupid.

          1. If you have an IQ of 20-30 you can be a lawyer, if your IQ is 31-40 you can be Dean or be in a government post. To be able to wipe your own ass your IQ must be 40+.

            1. “If you have an IQ of 20-30 you can be a lawyer, if your IQ is 31-40 you can be Dean or be in a government post. To be able to wipe your own ass your IQ must be 40+.”

              I guess this explains all those lawyers running around with turds encrusted on the seats of their pants.

              1. You noticed that too?

              2. Federal Dog,
                Granted, I’ve been (and still am) drinking, but you just made me laugh out loud.

          2. You have to wonder where he gets that shit from.

        2. Check your connotations.

      3. He’s a “legal titan” because his study guide gets very many scared shitless 1Ls through their first year con law class every year.

        I never used Chemerinsky’s book, because I was a tool in law school and just did all the damn reading of the actual cases and shit assigned. But most people I knew loved the “Chimmie” book.

        For the BarBri bar prep class, they showed us a vid of Erwin explaining all crap we’d need to know. I must say, he really does know the SCOTUS jurisprudence cold did did a very good job of boiling it down into a simple set of rules to understand and remember for taking the bar.

        But that doesn’t change the fact that he’s a leftist douchebag.

        1. “For the BarBri bar prep class, they showed us a vid of Erwin explaining all crap we’d need to know. I must say, he really does know the SCOTUS jurisprudence cold did did a very good job of boiling it down into a simple set of rules to understand and remember for taking the bar.”

          Actually, speaking as someone who litigates constitutional issues in virtually every case, his stunning accomplishment in that BarBri tape was somehow making the Constitution a torturous fucking bore.

          1. I never took the barbari. I just borrowed the materials and studied. I can’t imagine sitting thought that shit for days on end. Just read the damned book. I can’t believe people take those classes.

            1. Agreed. I went through law school, and Chereminsky is expert enough to write first-year primers and knows the Constitution inside and out. He’s a Con Law savior if you have a crappy, often drunk prof for Con Law. But he’s still lying. It’s almost unbelievable to watch.

              By the way, John is right. Lawyers are freakin’ miserable people. I went through school, passed the bar, and generally vehemently dislike the people involved with law. Most of them can F.O.A.D., for all I’m concerned.

              1. You’ve got to get out of so-called “civil” litigation.

                Come on over to the dark side. We criminal lawyers are not fighting over money, which seems to be the primary motive for attorney assholishness.

                Yeah, the guys on the other side are doing everything to mess with me — and FUCK the government forfeiture asset machine — but my cause is just, and I just don’t meet abject wretches who loathe their profession.

                If you’re a principled libertarian who believes in beating the state back with a cudgel, it’s good honest work.

                1. Your previous two comments have been spot on. All of my lawyer colleagues in crim defense are pretty awesome and really care about constitutional rights. However, I cannot say the same for the DAs or AGs.

                  1. What ever happened to the ‘search for the truth’ as far as DAs and AGs are concerned?

                    1. Win/loss records, its a game for them.

  7. And then Congress quickly turned it all over to the Executive and his apparatchiks

    1. Everyone a lawyer.

  8. The feds will indeed require us to eat three servings of fruit and vegetables every day, since once it starts paying the health insurance bill for all of us we’ll have to stay healthy under penalty of law in order to keep costs down.

    “In the name of the Health Insurance Polcie, put down that beer and cigar, citizen!”

  9. Chemerinsky actually is a big name in this area. Which makes me all the more angry at him and his fellow Behemoth-enablers.

    1. This proves my point about lawyers.

      1. Should read “….about many lawyers”

  10. Wow is it just me or is Erwin Chemerinsky straight out of the Randian Villain Archetype Machine (or the RVAM – Patent pending)? Nerdtastic Name. Check. Toady Appearance. Check. Despicable Profession. Check. Could double as a used tampon/douchebag/dumpster full of diarrhea infused adult diapers. Triple Check.

    1. it’s just you…

      1. No, it’s not.

    2. I’ve heard several people accept ‘Rand villain’ as a compliment oddly enough.

    3. Also a spectacled cross-eyed fuck.

    4. Erwin got wedgies in K-12 AND in college, so now he’s getting his revenge by way of fucking America’s collective ass with this legalese strap-on.

    5. Never mind Drax, what about Dax, the guy who used to advertise in Reason — until one of their own columnists parodied his get-rich ads?

  11. “During her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan seemed to accept that the Commerce Clause could, in theory, give Congress the power to dictate what Americans eat.”

    Of course she did. She’s a political hack who does exactly as ordered. Her sole courtroom experience was her single year as Solicitor General, during which her lack of experience and legal skills made itself painful obvious.

    That moron Obama actually mistook a school administrator for a functioning attorney.

    1. Ahhh….the legal equivalent of Krugmans economic acumen!

    2. To be fair, the Constitution doesn’t require that a SCOTUS justice be an attorney at all.

      1. How about minimally competent with first-hand familiarity with how courts work?

    3. As long as Americans refuse to think for themselves and put lawyers on a pedestal…the lawyers will tell them to eat shit!

    4. Most of the lawyers here seem intelligent and decent. I have painted with too broad a brush (as I was recently accused of). But it must make you lawyers proud to be in the company, in profession at least, of Bush, Obama, Gore, both Clintons most of the 535 members of Congress and so many others.

  12. No one cares that this post is essentially unsigned? Are you all so indifferent to your sources of information that you no longer cry out for transparency at the first sign of journalistic subterfuge? For a magazine called Reason, I just have to wonder what they’re hiding so close to happy hour.

    Also, the US Constitution was never meant to be a roadblock to government getting things done. Why would people fighting to throw off the yoke of oppressive governance right a frame a document that would do that?

    1. I have a hunch we’re going to be nostalgic for George III by time this comes to a head.

      1. There’s a third George Bush?

        1. He’s in the closet.

    2. ty Fist. Now, the rest of you, DRINK!

    3. And, of course, by “right” I actually meant “right” and not “write”.

      1. In fact, ignore that whole effing sentence as apparently that’s when the bourbon kicked in.

    4. No one cares that this post is essentially unsigned?

      It is Nick.

  13. I still don’t see how the individual mandate could possibly violate the constitution, especially if you classify the “fine” you have to pay if you don’t buy insurance as a “tax”. Congress certainly has the power to tax.

    Now, there are plenty of misuses of the Commerce Clause, like banning the intrastate production, sale, and use of, say, pot (or anything else for that matter).

    1. The question is what are they taxing? What is the specific activity that triggers the tax? They are taxing you for existing as a U.S. citizen and NOT doing something. They would be compelling you to act in a specific way, to engage in a specific business transaction with another person.

      Congress cannot exercise its taxing power in a way that would violate other provisions of the Constitution.

    2. Congress has the power to tax a non-action?

      1. It has the power to issue a tax break for performing an action, doesn’t it? So, since having everybody’s taxes are increased by whatever the fine is, and then decreased by the same amount if you purchase insurance, amounts to the same thing, the answer is yes.

        1. That’s not the same, and you know it. This is not a tax credit, it’s a penalty.

        2. Shit, I need to write that down!

        3. No it doesn’t. Taxes are levied on items, not actions. Property, food, money, etc.

          “Commerce” isn’t taxed. The items involved in commerce transactions are taxed. Even if you hire someone’s services, you are taxed on the financial transaction taking place.

          Actions can be subject to regulation, and may require permits to perform the actions, but the actions themselves are not taxed.

          I cannot come up with any examples of what they are attempting to enact.
          This legislation is so absurd that it careens over the edge of absurdity well into obscenity.
          By these twisted ideas, the government would have a right to tax anyone of notoriety that simply sits at a table in a restaurant, even if they didn’t order anything. Their presence counts as free advertising, and therefore is a financial transaction that could be assessed.

          This is a perfect illustration of the idea of government decaying into simple theft.

    3. Being charged a fine requires recourse to due process. Levying a fine by calling it a tax, would seem, at best, to be an artful dodge of the due process clause.

    4. Congress can only pass five kinds of taxes, however:
      1) Income tax (that doesn’t mean any tax taken paid out of income, it means that the amount of the tax must be based on income)
      2) Excise – If it were a tax on purchasing insurance, it could be considered excise. However, it is a tax on not purchasing insurance.
      3) Import
      4) Duties
      5) Direct taxes: While these are technically allowed, they can only be assessed based on representation in Congress.

      While judges are lazy and statist enough to let it slide, technically adding any other criteria to taxes but the above would either turn the tax into some other kind of tax, or else violate the equal protection of law (although if you were a super-duper literalist, the Federal Government isn’t obligated by the equal protection clause anyway, only the States). However, such an interpretation would invalidate most of the federal tax code.

    5. This was explained in the video.

      Assuming it’s a tax, then it’s not a tax on income. This means it’s a direct tax. The Constitution requires direct taxes to be apportioned by population. This isn’t; it’s apportioned by whether or not you bought health insurance.

    6. Revenue bills must originate in the house. Since the mandate tax was passed as part of a senate bill, it is unconstitutional as enacted.

  14. Why didn’t they just set it up like the mortgage interest deduction for homeowners. If you have health insurance with certain minimum requirements as determined by the czars, you get a deduction from your taxable income. Wa La, no requirement to buy health insurance, but if you don’t buy health insurance, you get taxed on a higher AGI.

    1. Which is different than Obamacare how? The expansion of tax credits beyond “the poor”? Or the slight rewording of how they’ll make you pay if you don’t buy insurance?

      1. the argument of opponents of obamacare claim the government has no authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance and that is why the lawsuits. if it is structured as i describe, where is the requirement to purchase?

        1. if it is structured as i describe, where is the requirement to purchase?

          but if you don’t buy health insurance, you get taxed on a higher AGI.

          Right there?

          1. So by your argument, everybody is required to obtain a mortgage and pay interest?

            1. The liberal argument includes the “well, car insurance is a requirement”, to which one could say “well, why not force even NON-drivers to buy it?”…

    2. Because then they’d have to pass an explicit tax increase.

      1. i forgot, obama was claiming it wasn’t a tax, that it was a requirement with a fine (or tax i forgot again) if you don’t buy, because he promised it wasn’t a tax. Now that it’s known that it can’t be a tax because it’s not an income tax, then it is congress’ right to require it. got it?

        1. It’s just a box you check on your tax form!

  15. Bring a pitcher of beer every ten minutes until someone passes out. Then bring one every five minutes.

  16. Now kneel before Zod The Commerce Clause.

  17. they’d have to pass an explicit tax increase.

  18. but if you don’t buy health insurance, you get taxed on a higher AGI.

  19. The government can do whatever the fuck it wants with the Commerce Clause. Get over it.

    1. Liberal Douchebags|8.25.10 @ 11:28PM|#

      The government can do whatever the fuck it wants with the Commerce Clause. Get over it.

      Can it prohibit abortions?
      Can it open a church?
      can it shut down a newspaper?
      Can it cut out your tongue?
      Can it imprison you for sedition?
      Can it execute married gays?
      Can it quarter soldiers in your home?
      Can it take your land?

  20. So it seems a shit load of things would fall apart if the commerce clause was interpreted properly…

    Would social security be legal?
    How about the EPA?
    or the department of education?

    How much depends on the commerce clause?

  21. The biggest problem is that, somehow, it became accepted that “incidental economic effects” amounts to “interstate commerce.”

  22. Which igroupsave is the best? Fremont group buy is your best choice, have a try to learn about San Francisco group purchase, and you will have a big surprise about San Jose group buy.

  23. South Bay Carpet is designed to fit virtually every purpose, decorating style and budget. Don’t forget about Milpitas Carpet, pacific material’s engineered cushion that enhances your Carpet in Milpitas by giving it a richer and more luxurious feel. Pacific Material has always been known carpet in south bay and trusted for its ability to repel liquid spills and resist soiling. flooring in Fremont made by Pacific Material offers thousands upon thousands of colors, styles and textures that will be perfect for your home. More and more people are seeking environmentally friendly Flooring in bay area options. Renewably sourced polymer, which uses Fremont Carpet renewable resources provided by agriculture.

    SC CD DVD duplicator is regarded as one of the most popular duplicator. The high quality and the best service you can get about their product FL DVD duplication system from there. NJ DVD duplication system could provide you much convenience. A DVD can contain much more data than an ordinary CD-ROM. NY DVD duplication system could help you make things become easier and effective. PA CD DVD duplicator, glass master is the key part of the complex, and IL CD DVD duplicator technology and skills to master is the first stage. IL CD DVD duplicator made by UTI Mall is your best choice. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask!

    It is more easy and convenient for people to obtain Mortgage loan CA. In modern times, the word mortgage alone, in everyday usage, is most often used to mean Mortgage in Bay Area , the numbers of agents of Mortgage Loan Los Angelesare a lot, however, their services are all different, and the qualification also exist some differences.

    Which igroupsave is the best? Fremont group buy is your best choice, have a try to learn about San Francisco group purchase, and you will have a big surprise about San Jose group buy.

  24. How odd, the spambots are originating in San Fran.

  25. Jeeze, you guys act like letting the federal government regulate and do anything it wants to do is a bad thing. How the hell else will we ever know how to live our lives without the government telling us??? All this talk about liberty and freedom – whenever I hear that crap I know I’m talking to a bunch of racist neanderthals who think that individuals serve any purpose or have any value other than to constitute the greater society. We are the world. It takes a village. I’d like to teach the world to sing!!!

    Tell me that Chemerinsky is not exactly equivalent to a Soviet functionary and that he would not thrive in that environment. Frankly, Chemerinsky and his ilk need to be among the first up against the wall if the time ever comes. Wow, that sounds extreme, but jeeze, I’m trying to remember, wasn’t there a time when Americans thought that liberty (and from a far less oppressive and rapacious regime than the one we currently live under)was worth dying and killing for.

    There’s a lot of mythology surrounding the American Revolution, but the idea that liberty – personal individual liberty – was worth any sacrifice was fundamental to what it meant to be an American. What a joke that is now. Live free or die – sure. As Saint Barry said, extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

    1. We must stop thinking of the individual and do what is best for society.

  26. We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…

  27. It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole … that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. …. This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture …. we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man.

  28. We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively.

  29. At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the [New England] Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good.

    1. Did Teddy Boy really say this???

  30. I wrote a letter to the editor just a couple weeks ago on this very issue. We should repeal the section dealing with interstate commerce.

  31. I wrote a letter to the editor just recently on this exact topic. Time to repeal the interstate commerce clause and perhaps replace it with something more narrowly written.

    http://www.newsandsentinel.com…..l?nav=5059

  32. Can we get a video of someone on our side who doesn’t say that driving is a privilege?

  33. Last time I looked, congress had the authority to levy and spend taxable income. If congress can use the commerce clause to dictate how Americans spend their disposable income as well, I and millions more will be outta here.

    There is no possible legally honest reading of the commerce clause that gives congress the authority to force citizens into commercial transactions.

    Congress could have imposed a tax or utilized tax dollars to create a payer for health care, just as civilized countries do. Congress elected instead to attempt to use commerce as a means to control the disposable income of US citizens and maintain the presently inhumane, ability to pay based health care system in this country.

    Shame.

  34. This video does a total hit job on Chemerinsky. Also, for all those commenting based on this piece of propaganda (shame, Reason), Chemerinsky is one of, if not the, most respected, informed, and brilliant Constitutional scholars in the country. The selective editing aired significantly fewer of Chemerinsky’s words than those of his counterpart, and was clearly intended to make him look bad. Anyway, in many of the clips shown, Chemerinsky was describing what the Commerce Clause means in a practical sense – that is, how Supreme Court caselaw interprets it – not his personal fantasy about what it “should” mean. I suggest all people actually read these Supreme Court decisions and not come to conclusions based on junk like this.

  35. I voted for Obama, as he spoke so well, Now I am embarrassed. Obama turns out to be a marxist, a liar, and a man with no experience. I really never thought about it one way or the other if Obama was or was not elgible, I never thought one way or the other if Obama was a muslim, now, from reading the articles on it, it appears that Obama is not even elgible to be president and he is a muslim. At this point, due to the destruction of the US Constitution laws and principles, it is time for the military to move and uphold the US Constitution and remove Obama the traitor from office.

  36. here are nice burberry scarves at a good discount,great welcome everyone order from us.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.