So we are to just disregard Article Six of the United States Constitution

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding..."

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and any unconstitutional law is void. So the courts in not allowing the constitution into their courts are effectively invalidating the proceedings where points of contestation arise in the public domain.

Though it might be against the law to yell fire in a theater the court has no right to refuse a first amendment defense. Because any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. This pertains to all laws and their derivations such as codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, etc. The case would have to be tried by a jury who is the only power in this country that can override the constitution. The judge has no power to overrule the constitution or exclude it from proceedings.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void." (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178)

So the confusion might have come about as a misunderstanding of my implication that cases I was referring to were matters of constitutional law and cases in which the constitution could apply.

On the whole a good answer.