suggest that. is there any evidence to suggest that the presidency was what they were focused on? there is some evidence of that. there were people saying we don t want jefferson davis to be elected president and there was also one of the drafts of section 3 specifically mentioned the presidency and the vice president. but it wasn t the final enactment. right. it wasn t the final enactment, but it shows there was some concern about some people about confederate insurrectionists ascending to the presidency. we look at the historical evidence and pick the evidence we like and interpret is tan den shally because you can throw this counterveiling evidence back in our face. we wanted to focus on the text of the constitution, this was a compromised provision that was enacted in section 3. let me ask you another question about the states. you have forcefully made an argument about the states not being able to enforce section 3, so if we agree with you on that, what happens
that argument. there is some evidence to suggest that. any evidence to suggest the presidency was what they were focused on? there is some evidence of that. people saying we don t want jefferson davis to be elected president and one of the drafts of section three specifically mentioned the presidency and vice presidency. it wasn t the final inaction. it wasn t final but there was concern by some people about con federal insurrectionists ascendsing to the presidency. we didn t want to make a a history argument. the other side can come back and throw this counter evidence back in our face. we wanted to focus more on the text of the constitution. it was a compromise provision that was enacted in section three. let me ask you another question about the states because you have forcefully made an argument about the states not being able to enforce section three. so if we agree with you on that, what happens next? i thought you also wanted us to end the litigation so is