> You are misunderstanding the word 'constitution'.
If you want to use that word in an unusual way, that's fine; but I didn't understand that that's how you were using it in reference to regulatory bodies created by US statutes. ("Statute", btw, is the usual way of referring to laws that tell what regulatory bodies can and should do.)
> You know dude, I'm not really sure you know how the government functions.
You know, I'm not really sure you know how to describe how the government functions using proper terminology. If you had said "statute" in the first place, which, as above, is the correct term for what you are referring to, I would have understood what you said right away. But you didn't.
> Your representatives create and modify acts that allocate funds to fund regulatory bodies to enforce laws.
Yes, and these are called "statutes", not a "constitution".
If you want to use that word in an unusual way, that's fine; but I didn't understand that that's how you were using it in reference to regulatory bodies created by US statutes. ("Statute", btw, is the usual way of referring to laws that tell what regulatory bodies can and should do.)
> You know dude, I'm not really sure you know how the government functions.
You know, I'm not really sure you know how to describe how the government functions using proper terminology. If you had said "statute" in the first place, which, as above, is the correct term for what you are referring to, I would have understood what you said right away. But you didn't.
> Your representatives create and modify acts that allocate funds to fund regulatory bodies to enforce laws.
Yes, and these are called "statutes", not a "constitution".