The Constitution As An Institution

The Constitution is very complex. It has a long history of how it came to be and how it ended
up being what it is now. "The Constitution As An Institution" dissected the history of the
Constitution and the theories concerning its existence. It also delves into the meaning of
institution, which, according to the material, is a set of ways of living and doing. It lies with
the notion that people behave in certain patterns. There is a written and an unwritten
Constitution, where the only difference is that one is supported by a document and the
other isn’t.

Rather than a governmental machine, the Constitution offers a fundamental framework.

Whatever the Constitution contains is applicable to not only the machine but also to its least
consequential parts. This sums up why the Constitution is called the fundamental law of the
land. It is so extensive that any law that departs from it is invalid.

As for the theories surrounding the Constitution, one of them is the orthodox theory. This
theory holds that rules are the source of all court decisions. The rulings of the judges and
arguments of the lawyers are based on the rules; hence, they promote a single line of
ideology. The rules decide the cases; there are no other views or perspectives. This theory
comes with a very high risk, as it lessens the accountability of the judges and lawyers. It
offers them a refuge from responsibility.

The private law, on the other hand, opposed the orthodox theory. According to it, the
notion that rules decide the cases flew in the face of common sense. For if it is true, then
one judge would be just as good as another, and yet there are judges that are hailed as
great and others who are known as awful. If rules decide cases, there is nothing more for
lawyers to argue about, and a judge's decision cannot be reversed. I would say that private
law is a more convincing theory. While rules are important in deciding a case, they cannot
decide a case all by themselves. Rules are not applicable to all scenarios and circumstances,
and they should be relaxed when they would result in injustice.

The general public also plays a role in the Constitution. The public’s loyalty, according to the
material, is real but blind and almost devoid of specific content. Hence, it is easy for the
specialists to shape and reshape the Constitution according to their will. It seems to imply
that people follow and respect the Constitution without giving a specific reason why. Aside
from loyalty and unity, the people seem to not understand the content of the Constitution
and its importance.

I agree that the Constitution is complex and cannot be easily understood, especially by
those who have no background in law. However, people should remember that the
Constitution is the fundamental law of the land and that it offers them protection from
abuses. Its importance should not be undermined, as it contains the most basic rights that
people possess.