the courts interpreted what their view points are and the policy objects of a sitting president's agenda. when you had the president then make comments as a sitting president, it gave insight that we otherwise did not have. so the cost benefit analysis that any court has to go by is the presidential prerogative to do what's best for national security against whether there is ill or bad intent to try to undermine the establishment clause of the constitution. when that twitter storm came into effect, that balancing act, especially in light of the fact that there had been no national security things had been accomplished to try to trust that national security argument it tipped in favor of saying this was not a lawful travel ban. >> and paul, the art that the white house, the president, the justice department under jeff sessions, this is the president of the united states, he's in charge of national security for the united states. he's the commander in chief. and he can determine who should be allowed to enter the country and who should not be allowed to