[mrsmith]

You agree searches do not require a warrant to be constitutional. You even add another example to mine.

But then you repeat that searches without a warrant are unconstitutional.

Courts use the "national security" standard just as it is courts who use the "hot pursuit" and "officer safety" standards for searches. Subsequent judicial reviews are available in all cases, though counterintelligence investigations often don't end up in court.

[inquest]

It's like this: Searching people's property without their consent is illegal. There are, however, a few ways that your illegal actions can be sanctified by the law. One way is to get a warrant. The other is through common-law concept known as "extenuating circumstances". That's where things like hot pursuit come into play. If you witness an illegal act, you are allowed (even expected, to a certain extent) to apprehend the ne'er-do-well.

"National security", being such a vaguely defined term, is not an extenuating circumstance for doing something illegal, unless someone's about to blow something up or something. Government's whole purpose is national security. If that became a reason to disobey the law, then law simply doesn't apply to government. I don't know what the specific logician's term for it is, but you're employing a logical device that essentially destroys the foundations on which it is based.