Highly respected national security experts ranging from former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy to retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin are warning the U.S. Supreme Court not to turn the U.S. Constitution into a "suicide pact" when the justices consider President Trump's so-called "Muslim ban."

If the court finds that Shariah supremacism equals Islam, equals religion, equals immunity from governmental protective measures, "the Constitution really will have become a suicide pact," they wrote.

"We will have decided that anti-constitutional Shariah radicals are just as welcome as any other law abiding, patriotic Muslims."

The brief was submitted by the American Freedom Law Center in a lawsuit against Trump's plan to improve the security of the United States by banning entry of unvetted individuals from eight terror-supporting nations.

TRENDING: Alan Dershowitz sues CNN to halt 'malicious' attacks on innocent people

Along with McCarthy and Boykin, the brief is signed by Center for Security Policy Director Frank Gaffney, American Freedom Law Center Chairman Robert J. Shillman, retired U.S. Navy Adm. James Lyons Jr, U.S. Navy and Ambassador Henry F. Cooper.

The brief contends the president's most recent executive proclamation suspending entry and creating a more rigorous entry vetting process for immigrants and travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen and Somalia is constitutional.

The case was accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court after two judges ruled against the president's order. Oral arguments will take place in a few weeks.

The brief contends the problem is Shariah supremacism, which does not accept any separation between politics and religion.

Shariah "prohibits individual liberty (particularly freedom – of religion, of speech, and in economic affairs). It systematically discriminates against women and non-Muslims. It is cruel in its enforcement. And it endorses violent jihad to settle political disputes (since such disputes boil down to whether Shariah is being undermined – a capital offense."

The brief points out the high court previously has found that an alien trying to enter the U.S. does not have any right to do so.

Instead, that is a "privilege."

"Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe," the previous ruling said.

It continued: "The decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the president, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer. … The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive."

That means, the brief explains, courts should not even be considering a challenge to the Trump order.

The lower courts, instead of reviewing the law, simply imposed their "policy objections" to the president's actions to oppose him, the brief asserts.

"They have a policy objection to government recognition of the nexus between Islamic scripture and terrorism committed by Muslims," the brief states.

"For the lower courts, the law is not a corpus of constitutional and statutory principles to be applied. It is a pliable weapon for achieving policy goals, enabling will-to-power to masquerade as a 'legal process."

The president's target is dead on, they say.

"Make no mistake, the ultimate and legitimate national security policy goal here is to achieve a screening system that in large measure vets for Islamic radicalism. However, how do you ever achieve this goal if, in order to satisfy a judiciary that is hostile to your policy objective in the first instance, you are forced to disavow a purpose to subject alien Muslims to heightened scrutiny?"

The brief argues "the United States is in a defensive war against what is imprecisely called 'radical Islam.'"

"The implementation and spreading of Shariah … is the rationale for all jihadist terror and of all the Islamist cultural aggression that slipstreams behind it," the filing states.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder, said the brief "plants a flag of coherence on the beach we must take if we are to protect this country's security from the quiet and legal infiltration of jihadists flowing in from not only Muslim failed states, but also Muslim functioning states, Africa, and even Europe."

AFLC Senior Counsel Robert Muise said the AFLC brief "argues that the president has not only the authority for a travel ban, he has the constitutional and statutory authority to impose an ideological vetting process to screen for Shariah-adherent Islamists."

"This will be the first time since 9-11 that this issue will be squarely and coherently briefed to the Supreme Court. It begins the all too important policy discussion at the highest levels within the Halls of Justice and, as such, within the inner reaches of the law. It turns the lawfare of the Islamists and Progressives in on itself and reshapes and indeed opens up new fronts on the legal and policy battlefields enabling those who cherish western civilization and our constitutional republic to take an offensive and ultimately rational posture into the lawfare and policy trenches," Muise said.

Trump's order was made after a review by the Homeland Security secretary of nearly 200 nations. DHS concluded the eight nations were unable to properly vet people coming to the U.S.

The DHS initially had identified 16 countries with significant risk factors and another 31 with security concerns.