1624. As to the second prong of the Lopez test, the Government emphasizes that Courts have determined that Section 2250(a) is a valid exercise of legislative power under the Commerce Clause, as “[t]he express language of SORNA dictates that violations under SORNA, for failing to register, require either that the person is convicted of a violation of a federal law or, if otherwise required to register under SORNA, travel in interstate or foreign commerce.” Government’s Omnibus Response, Docket No. 35, quoting United States v. Elliott, 2007 WL 4365599 at *3 (S.D.Fla., December 13, 2007); see also, United States v. Thomas, 534 F.Supp.2d 912, 918 (N.D.Iowa 2008)(“See-tion 2250 falls squarely within the second Lopez category.”); United States v. Mason, 510 F.Supp.2d 923, 932 (M.D.Fla.2007) (<HOLDING>). As explained by the Court, in United States
holding if a plaintiffs claim is concerned with rights created within the contractual relationship it falls within the tucker act holding that strict limitations set forth in section 1252e preclude judicial review of any constitutional or statutory claims related to the underlying expedited removal order holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself holding that section 2250a is facially constitutional because it falls within the second category set forth in lopez holding that plea in bar may be based only on grounds set forth in statute