I get your point and I think you're right so far as it goes, but it still comes down to: We sometimes have to break (or ignore or intentionally misconstrue) the law to do what's right. I think that's a totally fine point of view, but it's not exactly "rule of law" is it?

No, it's not, of course. But Mansfield et al are not suggesting the occasional act of civil disobedience or willful ignoring of what one considers to be a bad law by ordinary citizens with ordinary power, but a tyrant breaking the law when and how he sees fit, for whatever reasons, and possessing extraordinary powers. There is an enormous real-world difference between the two. Both are illegal, but the difference is still massive, tectonic and ubridgeable.

Do you want them inventing new national mandates that are not subject to any sort of legislative review or appeal? I don't think you do. But whatever you create to constrain them has to constrain everybody else too, right? And if not the letter of the law, then what?

Well, not if I don't like these mandates or view them as unconstitutional. But if they do so anyway--and they have the right to--until they are overturned by a later court, neither congress nor we really have any choice but to either comply with them, find lawful ways around them, or disobey them--i.e. break the law--and suffer the consequences.

So I'm not sure what sorts of legislative reviews or appeals or other constraints you're referring to here. What legitimate (i.e. constitutional) powers does congress, the executive, or the people, have to lawfully ignore such "mandates"? I know of none.

E.g. Roe v. Wade. Once ruled, it was the law of the land, no matter how much some people disagreed with it, even if they were the finest constitutional scholars in the land on both the right and left. A SCOTUS ruling is binding and final, until a subsequent ruling overturns it (e.g. Plessy v. Fergeson). Congress, the president and the people have certainly looked for ways around it, but in its essential ruling, it still stands, whether or not you like it.

So as I see it, it's not a matter of what I do or don't want, but of what the constitution does and doesn't allow. And to refute that in practice is to essentially violate the constitution, which in an extreme case such as the one that Mansfield proscribes, is clearly tyranny.

If it's wrong for the president to go beyond his constitutional powers acting (for the sake of argument) in the national defense, why is it acceptable for the Supreme Court to go beyond its constitutional powers in the pursuit of (for the sake of argument) an issue of social justice? And if both of those things are acceptable, what does it mean to say we have a government of laws rather than of men?

Because the two simply cannot be compared. The president simply cannot lawfully violate the constitution. He can do so practically, of course, to the extent that his current powers allow him to do so, but not lawfully. But if congress decides that he has done this, it has the ability and right to punish him for it (directly via impeachment or censure, indirectly via a variety of legislative means such as the cutting off funding for key programs). And if the courts decide that he has done this, they can rule against him and compel him to reverse course. Congress and/or the courts determine whether the president has violated the constitution, and either individually or in concert, they can take action to make him stop.

Whereas there is no power within either the legislature or executive (that I know of at least) that allows either or both of these branches to determine that the judiciary has violated the constitution. There is impeachment, I suppose, but that's an extremely rare and difficult process (as it well should be). And they can try to find ways around such rulings (and god knows they've tried). But otherwise, from my understanding the courts are the final determiners of what is and isn't constitutional, no matter how many constitutional experts might disagree with their rulings, and almost by definition cannot pass down an unconstitutional ruling. Unpopular and unforgiveable, yes, unconstitutional, no.

So it's not a matter of what is and isn't acceptable for either branch to do vis a vis violating the constitution, but of what one branch cannot do (the executive) and the other can (the judiciary). Namely, interpret the constitution as it deems fit. So I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. We can disagree with the constitutionality of a given ruling all we want (you with Roe v. Wade, me with Bush v. Gore, both of us--I assume--with Plessy v. Fergesun), but once it's made, it's the law, like it or not.

Please explain to me why I'm wrong--you or anyone else. I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm not understanding something here.