Your piece argued against constitutionalism, defined as the idea "that there needs to be some higher law that is more difficult to change than the rest of the legal order." One such "higher law" would be that statutes govern exec actions. You argued against such "higher law," no?

Could be, but you could still have statutes regulating the exec. This is orthogonal to the main thing people worry about these days, which is execs flouting higher and ordinary law, and the judiciary signing off.

I don't see how one can have statutes regulating the exec w/o a higher law telling them to. or, at least, I wouldn't call that a legal system. one might even call it nihilistic :) agreed orthogonal to mainstream concerns, but I am responding to your args which are not mainstream! (to your credit)