Josh Zive says:

I am not sure there any SC dec's that actually say that national secuirty is a higher priority than the 1st amnedment. What they say is that there is no 1st amendment protection because of the balance of interests (individual speech versus the interests of the polis) inherent in the first amendment. I think a strong argument can be made that the cases Tim cites do not "prioritize" national security over the 1st amendmnet. They say there is no 1st amendment right because of the forum within which it is asserted (the military) in combination with the type of speech in question (the severity of the restriction).

I think this is important because it may mean the topic is both too narrow and overbroad. Too narrow because no case will have langauge meeting the literal interpreation of the topic, and too broad because once you are not tied to the language and holdings of a decision the literature could take you to nearly any case involving police powers at the state or national level.
 

This is an argument that makes some sense to me. I am not scared by the "people will run away from the 1st amendment" or "crappy CP du jour" will allow that or even the broad part given my belief in community choice on this issue. Your discussion though actually thinks through the implications of the lit. and that I can appreciate. Maybe Tim can answer this.
--chief