Then there ya' go.
And yep, I do get the idea. I object to the whole "do the ends justify the means" proposition because most decisions are informed by a lot more factors than just (a) the end, and (b) the means.
This is why I can comfortably say that, if the situation were desperate enough and I were in a position of political power, I would violate the Constitution in order to preserve the Constitution. (Of course I would then resign and accept whatever punishment is leveled at me).
I think it might depend on those who have to suffer the means. If they agree that the ends justify the means, then it might be true, though the argument is based on subjectivity of morality.
I would say that if any law must be violated to preserve it, then the law is not all that and a bag of chips to begin with and it would serve others better if it was changed.
Consider the argument, what if to preserve the Constitution someone's human and civil rights must be violated? Now it's fine and good to accept the punishment for affecting someone that way, but does that remedy the violation of someone's rights? Besides don't you think this is a slippery slope argument? Is there violation of Constitution so egregious that you would not consider it no matter how desperate the situation? Or wouldn't your actions set a precedent for others with political power to engage in such actions, who might not be decent enough to resign and accept the punishment?
I think some of the best examples of "do ends justify the means" question are Stalin's WWII orders 227 and 270, which created barrier troops composed of NKVD operatives, which were supposed to shoot the retreating troops and court-martial commanders who retreat wthout authorization. Now if the orders were the reason why Soviets were able to stop German offensive would anyone right now argue that the ends did not justify the means? However, those who were killed by the barrier troops would probably disagree with the conclusion if they weren't dead.