By your response to WT and other comments it basically sounds to me like you've had it with our constitution because it no longer works for you. Well, maybe it doesn't, but it's still the constitution, and while you may have some "natural" right to rebel against it, you do not have any such constitutional rights to do so. Think of it as belonging from birth to a club that you'd rather not belong to, but which you cannot leave except by renouncing your membership (i.e. citizenship) entirely. Are you prepared to do that? I didn't think so.

I agree that this must suck for you, but that's just the way it goes. Protest all you like, but the constitution still applies to you, and everyone else no matter how much they might hate it. Thankfully, you have not gone over to the dark side (I sincerely hope) and joined those who have been actively trying to undermine and destroy it. But remember, those who try to split the difference and stay in the middle often get hit by the crossfire. There is no true, permanent center in American politics. Never has been, never will be, whatever Broder and Lieberman say.

But that's a whole other discussion...

Well, the problem with such extreme hypotheticals is that they never materialize in reality. Oh, sure, I suppose that to your side Roe v. Wade was as brazen if not more so. But not in the opinion of most legal scholars, to my knowledge. And the majority of Americans have consistently been pro-choice since the mid-70's. Not that this makes a ruling any more legitimate. But it does put it out of lollipop territory, I think.

But let's take your examples at face value. If SCOTUS did make such a ruling, then I'd say that congress, the president, and the people, had no choice but to ignore these rulings. Yes, that would be unconstitutional, of course. But necessary--i.e. the civil disobedience model.

And in such an extreme situation, I'd argue that SCOTUS would quickly move to strike down such a ruling, because were it to let it stand, and the rest of the country ignored it--which SCOTUS has no enforcement power to reverse--it would effectively be rendered irrelevant as a branch of power, in sort of the reverse of Marbury v. Madison.

And it would be loath to do that. Which is why it probably wouldn't issue such a ruling in the first place, since it would likely know how it would play out. Justices are politically attuned, after all, and don't issue rulings in a political vaccuum.

Now clearly, I have proposed a possible remedy to what is seen to be an unconstitutional and/or horrible ruling by SCOTUS, that is clearly, on its face, unconstitutional, which, I suppose, contradicts my apparently "strictly by the book" reasoning here. But not really, because I'm explicitely saying that in certain extreme cases, violating the constitution might be necessary. But only in extreme cases, and only when congress, the executive and the majority of Americans agree that it's exteme enough to warrant such an extreme remedy.

Whereas Mansfield's apparent readiness to violate the constitution need only be justified by the opinions of a certain "virtuous" and "wise" minority--if not a minority of one, i.e. a tyrant. Big difference. The tyranny of the supermajority is usually (but not always) a justified one.

It's not a perfect system. And there are consistencies in my interpretations of it. But I honestly can't think of a better one that is practically viable and morally justifiable. Maybe marginally so, but not essentially so.

It seems to me that what these people are advocating is the destruction of our government as it has existed for 200 years and its replacement with a unitary executive (i.e, dictator) whose primary purpose is to serve the interests of capitalism.

They're not just advocating it. They've been actively working towards it. And now that there's a strong and growing backlash by a finally awakened public, they don't like and can't handle it, and are reacting like the petulant sore losers that they are as they flail about desperately.

Seems they don't like the "checks and balances" part of the constitution. Awwwww.

Clearly, Mansfield et al are having an philosphical discussion amongst themselves that they mistakenly believes applies to our constitution. They might as well be discussing what kind of cheese the moon is made out of. Just a bunch of silly old farts living in a fantasy world of their own making and entirely non-applicable to the real one that the rest of us live and operate in.

I'm not saying that their discussion are entirely divorced from politics, or rather political science and theory. But in a theoretical, philosophical, purely academic sense, and not in any way that has any practical relevance to our actual legal and political systems. It's simply too beyond the pale to be capable or worthy of serious practical consideration.

I'll leave them to discuss the finer points of Klingon literature amongst themselves.

I wouldn't go so far as to call all or even most academics ivory tower theorists. Many are very much grounded in the real world (especially those who constantly have to pimp for grant money). But I think that Harvey and the Kagans et al clearly belong to this lesser category of academicus irrelevantis ad absurdum--especially those whose salaries are paid for and/or supplemented generously by the likes of the AEI, Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institute, etc.

They are engaging in self-satisfied navel-gazing, not problem-solving. Spend two minutes observing Mansfield or Fred Kagan espousing their world views and you can easily see that they're not of this world. Some are crazy. Some are stupid. All are living in Planet Theiranus.