[ndt]

"Hmmm...one sentence?..."

That one sentence was what allowed the legal formation of a dictatorship out of a constitutional democracy.

"I prefer to avoid reliance on legalism as a guarantor of freedom and national security"

As opposed to what, blind faith in the leader? Seriously, if you don't want to rely on the law, what are you suggesting we use?

"But no one could seriously believe that a nation engaged in a fight for it's survival would pay attention to a group of hairsplitting jurists where operational matters are concerned."

Judges rule on the laws written by congress, if you have a problem with the law, take it up with them. For a judge to ignore the law as written by congress is the epitome of judicial activism.

"If a President with Congressional backing chooses to ignore them, what happens?"

That could potentially result in bloody battles between the national guard and federal marshals.

[PerConPat]

That one sentence was what allowed the legal formation of a dictatorship out of a constitutional democracy.

Yes, it was a law. And the people allowed the formation of a dictatorship; the sentence was nothing without the inability of the people to see through its inherent danger.

As opposed to what, blind faith in the leader? Seriously, if you don't want to rely on the law, what are you suggesting we use?

I would suggest that a chief executive and hundreds of legislators could do nicely most of the time without the "help" of the professional pettifoggers on the bench when it comes to national security.

Judges rule on the laws written by congress, if you have a problem with the law, take it up with them. For a judge to ignore the law as written by congress is the epitome of judicial activism.

Judges make law, as well. I remember Lenny Bruce's observation that the US is run by judges and that elected officials are merely clerks. I would hate to see that come about, in the event it hasn't already done so.

I know exactly what you mean by judges ignoring the law; I was especially impressed of late by the SCOTUS failing to protect private property.

That could potentially result in bloody battles between the national guard and federal marshals.

Please forgive me, but this point is a bit of a stretch. I could believe that a member of the legal profession, and I'm not directing this at you since I don't know your area of expertise, might actually buy into this. But there is no chance of this sort of fairytale occurring; the Marshals are not likely to have the bloated sense of self-importance necessary to engage in this madness.