There's "the Constitution" the document, which has some words in it.
Then there's "the Constitution" the spirit, which is what the American public feels abut the document, irrespective of the words therein.
The two are never quite the same, and the latter is often the deciding factor when it comes to writing laws. The former factor, carefully parsing the words in the context of laws, has been where the courts come in. But these days is seems the court's view on the Constitution is colored as much by their feelings about the words as the words taken literally themselves. For example, for decades one court can say that a right to privacy is implied by the Constitution, and then suddenly a new court can completely flip that. Despite the words in the Constitution remaining the same in the intervening period, the feelings of the court about the document changed, and so what is considered "Constitutional" under the law changed as well.
In that sense, what is normal can in fact be Constitutional, as long as people with the right power say so, even if the document doesn't say as such in literal words.
There's "the Constitution" the document, which has some words in it.
Then there's "the Constitution" the spirit, which is what the American public feels abut the document, irrespective of the words therein.
The two are never quite the same, and the latter is often the deciding factor when it comes to writing laws. The former factor, carefully parsing the words in the context of laws, has been where the courts come in. But these days is seems the court's view on the Constitution is colored as much by their feelings about the words as the words taken literally themselves. For example, for decades one court can say that a right to privacy is implied by the Constitution, and then suddenly a new court can completely flip that. Despite the words in the Constitution remaining the same in the intervening period, the feelings of the court about the document changed, and so what is considered "Constitutional" under the law changed as well.
In that sense, what is normal can in fact be Constitutional, as long as people with the right power say so, even if the document doesn't say as such in literal words.