Tony Blankley provides this lesson in today’s Washington Times:

I have appeared on several radio and television shows with prominent journalists who manifest a perfect ignorance of even the most basic principles of constitutional law — even as they pronounce with self-consciously weighty judgment the unconstitutionality of the president’s actions.
However, the most basic constitutional principle is that in war time, the constitutionality of government intrusion into peace time civil liberties must be proportional to the magnitude, likelihood and exigency of the threat or danger to be prevented.
Until one has measured the threat, one cannot rationally judge the constitutionality of the intrusion into civil liberties of the executive action. The president’s critics simply ignore — or are oblivious to — the threat.

I just reread the constitution, it does not take long, and find no such principle stated. There is no reference to the constitution applying differently in wartime than in peacetime so when Kevin Drum asks:

But does that make sense? Is anyone really comfortable with the idea that three decades from now the president of the United States will have had wartime executive powers for nearly a continuous century?
Somehow we need to come to grips with this. There’s “wartime” and then there’s “wartime,” and not all armed conflicts vest the president with emergency powers.

I answer that not only does it not make sense that the president should have 30 nears of wartime executive powers there is no reason, certainly none called out in the constitution, that the president should ever have any power to abrogate any part of the constitution.
Can congress enact a law that allows the president to abrogate the constitution? Well, they can do it but, again, there does not appear to be anything in the constitution that gives congress this authority so when they do so they are violating their oath to uphold the constitution and should, rightly, be tossed out of office.
Via To the People.
Update: James Joyner notes that:

…bold wartime leaders have been flouting the Constitution since at least Lincoln, with the full support of the public.

Well, this certainly does not make them worthy of respect no matter how arrogant bold they are and there is nothing about “the full support of the public” that legitimizes abrogation of the constitution without going through the steps to amend the constitution.