[PerConPat]

So you basically disagree with the central tenet of three separate but coequal branches of government as laid out in the constitution. There is no exception in the constitution for "national security"

There is no mention of "judicial review" either, and it was discussed by the framers of the Constitution according to this source.

Do you seriously believe that the founders intended the Judiciary to have the last word? The Judiciary, whether designating Dred Scott as property or overturning honest elections, has become the last refuge of the lunatic fringe. The Constitution itself gives power over the Judiciary to the Legislative branch. As I recall, the SCOTUS avoided major overhaul by FDR only by doing deals in Congress.

The scenario you laid out where the President and Congress "ignored" the judiciary, in it's most extreme form, would be best described as an overthrow of the legitimate U.S. Government.

This is becoming a "chicken or the egg" argument. But for the sake of discussion, the Congress is empowered to impeach justices, pack the Court, and make law overturning decisions. Based on this I must conclude that the Judiciary has been afforded "coequal" status at the pleasure of the Legislative.

There is no provision for "ignoring".

Based on my observations above, I would say that there is provision for much more than "ignoring." Yes, I am mindful of the Judicial branch's role in protecting the minority; but it was never intended to cripple the majority. This last point, IMHO, is probably where most discussions on this topic will ultimately arrive. We will not resolve it.

[ndt]

" Do you seriously believe that the founders intended the Judiciary to have the last word?"

They don't have the last word, congress can change the law and even amend the constitution, thereby overriding any ruling made by the court.

"The Constitution itself gives power over the Judiciary to the Legislative branch."

The constitution does not "give power over" the judiciary, that is a wildly, overly broad description and not at all what the Constitution says.

"I must conclude that the Judiciary has been afforded "coequal" status at the pleasure of the Legislative."

That is a very novel interpretation. So you are confirming my contention, that you do not believe that our government was intended to be composed of three separate but equal branches. If legislative writes laws, and the executive executes those laws, who do you propose is to judge those laws? Is the executive now prosecutor, judge and executioner as well? If the executive itself oversteps the laws as written by congress, who is to hold him accountable?

You are making arguments that go well beyond those that the administration is making. The administration is asserting that their actions are legal. You are asserting that the executive is above the law. You are arguing for a totalitarian dictatorship.