Problem 2 poses a question involving outright presidential defiance of a binding legal order from the Chief Justice of the United States. In thinking about that problem, it might also be helpful to consider the following two examples from U.S. history, and what they say about the power of courts (and the constitutional obligations of others).
Example 1: The Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education in May 1954, holding that in the field of public education, "separate is inherently unequal." Racial segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There were five school districts who were actual parties to Brown, and most everyone agreed that those five school districts were bound by whatever remedial order the court issued. Thousands of other school districts (outside the deep South) desegregated their schools in an orderly fashion. Tens of thousands of school districts in the deep South, however, stated that they disagreed with the Court's reading of the Constitution and refused to follow it. They stated that they would follow a judicial order directed at them specifically as parties (though this was not always honored), but they asserted their independent right to interpret the Constitution. As a result, roughly 1 percent of African-American children were attending desegregated schools in the deep South as of 1965, eleven years after Brown had been decided. History has largely judged the South's resistance to Brown as shameful and lawless.
Example 2: In 1857, the Supreme Court handed down its infamous decision in Scott v. Sanford (also known as Dred Scott). In that decision, among other things, the Court held that Congress had no authority to regulate slavery in the territories, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, that no African-American could be a citizen of the United States, and thus that Mr. Dred Scott remained a slave owned by Sanford (even though he had been taken for a time to "free" territory). Abraham Lincoln stated that, although he (and everyone else) clearly had an obligation to obey the specific judgment in Dred Scott, and thus not to challenge the idea that Mr. Scott was still owned by Mr. Sanford, he (and we) had no obligation to obey the Court's construction of constitutional meaning, or what Lincoln called Dred Scott's "political rule." For if we did--if we simply let the Supreme Court decide, once and for all time, what the Constitution means--then we have given over our government "of the people, by the people, for the people" to the courts. History has judged Lincoln's position to be courageous, and indeed he remains widely viewed as the nation's single greatest political leader.
Is the only difference the underlying moral rightness (or wrongness) of the two causes? If so, does that mean that school districts in the deep South were just as justified as Lincoln in asserting an independent authority to interpret the Constitution for themselves?