You have probably heard this defense more than once: "It was legal." That statement often sounds like the end of the discussion. Constitutionally, it's usually the beginning of the problem.
The Constitution is not a legal document
We've been taught to think of the Constitution as the highest law in a legal system. That's backwards. The Constitution is not law (in the common meaning of the word). It is the grant of authority that determines what can become law.
Legal documents operate inside an existing system of authority. Contracts. Statutes. Court rulings. They all assume someone already has the power to make them binding. The Constitution doesn't assume authority. It creates it. It says: these institutions may exercise these powers, under these conditions, and no others. Everything that happens legally afterward — every statute, every ruling, every enforcement action — happens because the Constitution authorized someone to do it.
When we treat the Constitution as a legal document, we make a category error. We place it inside the very system it creates. And once it's inside that system, we start thinking it works like other legal documents: Courts interpret it, Lawyers argue about it, Precedent refines it, and Procedures enforce it.
But none of that is what makes the Constitution operative. The Constitution is operative because the People made it so. It doesn't derive authority from the legal system. The legal system derives authority from it.
This distinction between a grant of authority and the law made under that grant, is what separates "lawful" from "legal." And once we lose that distinction, constitutional violations become invisible.
What "legal" really means
The word legal describes where something happens — inside the law system — not whether it has constitutional authority. Legal refers to the law system — courts, statutes, procedures, filings, rulings. If an action moves through those channels using recognized forms, it is often described as "legal." But that tells us nothing about whether the action is lawful under the Constitution.
The legal system existed before the Constitution. Judges made common law. Legislatures passed statutes. Lawyers developed rules for interpreting both. The Constitution didn't abolish that system. It placed it inside a higher one.
Why law itself can be unlawful
The Framers fully expected that Legislatures could pass unconstitutional laws, Executives could enforce them, and Courts could apply them. If law could never violate the Constitution, there would be no need for a Constitution at all.
So an action can be Legal in form (passed, enforced, reviewed by recognized institutions), and Unlawful in substance (exercising power the Constitution never granted)
Early Americans understood this distinction instinctively. Over time, we've blurred it.
The hierarchy we have forgotten
The Constitution is not part of the legal system. The legal system is part of the constitutional system. That hierarchy matters.
When we say things like, "A court approved it," or "No law was broken," we are answering legal questions while ignoring the constitutional one: Was constitutional authority violated?
Why this confusion persists
This confusion didn't happen by accident. When courts became the primary interpreters of constitutional meaning, "constitutional" began to mean "what courts say." Over time, "legal" absorbed "constitutional" entirely. If a court approved it, it must be constitutional. If no court stopped it, it must be lawful.
This trains We the People to stop thinking constitutionally and start thinking like spectators. It also trains us to think as adversaries, as the law requires.
The conflation is also convenient. It shifts responsibility away from citizens, encourages passivity ("If it were wrong, a court would stop it"), and allows constitutional violations to hide behind procedure.
Why this matters
When legality replaces constitutionality as our standard, we quietly surrender our role as sovereign. The Constitution does not rely on courts to protect itself. It relies on an educated public that understands the difference between process and authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment