i think we have it here. under the constitution, essentially, that statement says to me a president cannot deem it to be unconstitutional, even if the court has held or would hold it's constitutional. now, you do state yesterday, when we talked, that your view was compelled by hechler versus cheney. i disagree. nothing in hechler suggests that the present can essentially nullify, simply deem a law, unilaterally, unconstitutional, based on his personal view of the law and constitutionality. so hechler stands for the principle that courts will generally not second-guess the executive branch's decision on how to you use enforcement