 Terrific. Caroline, I started off this morning by noting that Eugene Myer in an earlier session with Carl had kind of endorsed the basic thrust of law.gov to make the law publicly available by making it easily accessible. And noted that this may be one of the only issues that you and the head of the Federal Society agree on. I'm not sure that's true, but maybe one or two others. But on a serious note, how far fundamental is this to actual law reform from your perspective? Is this a tertiary issue for techies only, or do you see this as really being an important part of the way the American Constitution Society sees the development of justice really in the society? Well, John, first, thank you for the nice introduction. And I'd like to also thank Carl for thinking of including us. I do think this is fundamentally an extremely important project for the American Constitution Society. We'd obviously much more importantly for our nation. Actually, when I first heard about the project, I sort of scratched my head and thought, well, why didn't we think of this before? Why isn't this already the case? It's sort of, and as I've talked to people subsequently, including my husband last night driving home, talking about the event you're holding here today, and he said, what, that's crazy. And it is really so self-evident that this is something that we should have already in a democracy that I, it's a real testament to Carl and to others who've been engaged in this, to pushing it forward, because I think as we bring it out to a broader public, they will also think that this is self-evident and what we are absolutely entitled to in a democracy. And let me just say, I don't know. There may be something else that the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society agree on, but I think it's a pretty good indication of how broad and widespread the agreement is that such a change in how our government provides information is of a fundamental nature. And let me just say so that the American Constitution Society functions as a network of lawyers and law students and scholars, policy makers and judges who believe in the vitality of the Constitution and the fundamental values it expresses. Individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, access to justice, democracy, and the rule of law. And access to information is seen as, is characterized as a basic human right because it precedes the exercise of all of these other rights. And then the ability to learn about and share information about our laws is really a conditioned precedent to the fulfillment of each of the principles that I mentioned that are the component of the ACS mission. That is individual rights and liberties, equality, access to justice, democracy, and rule of law. None of these can really be achieved without governments making the law available to everyone for review. So I think it is not just something that I think is a great idea that American Constitution Society would benefit from because we are made up of lawyers and law students and law professors and judges who could obviously use this, but it is I think a central way of actually achieving the mission that we believe so deeply in. You've worked on the Hill, you've worked in the White House, not you've worked in NGOs. How do we make that happen? How do you, as a practical matter, this is an extraordinarily complicated set of actors who are either, if you think of it, part of the problem or part of the solution. It's not just the federal government, the states, the counties, the municipal entities that are involved in creating the law. What's a sort of practical way for moving Carl's project forward? Well, you know, I think it's an extremely good question. I think the workshops that are being held already are a key component because it's very hard, John, as you know, better than anybody to actually make any changes in the way the government does business, pass legislation, regulations, et cetera, without actually having some part of the public who's engaged in that area. And I think engaging the broader public in a discussion about what, again, I think people will think is something they should have already had. I think is a key part of this. And so continuing the discussion and continuing to have the discussions with people on the Hill, with people in the judicial system. I know Carl had told me he's going to meet with the night circuit, engaging the judges, engaging law professors. And I think the other anecdote that was really very meaningful to me was this morning discussing the Pacers system and how law schools are discontinuing access for students or not allowing them in the first place because of the cost. And the idea that our law schools think that students, you know, that they're not allowing students access to the cases in a user-friendly format is incredible. I mean, that is really, it's a loss to our entire society that students come out less well educated. The process is complicated. But I think that's another area where engaging the students and the professors who are actually using this data all the time to start engaging in a more public way.