There is often a bit of confusion about the relationship between the Law and the Constitution.

A private citizen is free to do anything he or she wishes, unless it is prohited by Law.

The government is not allowed to do anything, unless it is permitted by the Constitution. And especially not allowed if the Constitution specifically prohibits it, such as abridgement of freedom of speech or search and seizure without a warrant.

So the Constitution is a restriction on the government, not on private citizens. Whether we like it or not, an employer can restrict freedom of speech in the workplace. By the same token, constitutional protection of freedom of speech does not require that you allow someone to say things in your own home that you find offensive.

I'm afraid our president is not really up on this principle either. He seems to be under the impression that all he has to do is get Congress to pass a law (such as the Patriot Act) and that allows him to break all sorts of constitutional prohibitions "because it's legal. It's the law." But if that law contradicts elements in the Constitution, then, no, it is not legal, even if there is a law on the books. Any law is subject to challenge on this basis, in which case the law can be brought up before the Supreme Court, who are then supposed to determine whether or not it is constitutional.

Checks and balances.

But again:   Law restricts the actions of persons. The Constitution restricts that actions of the government.

Don Firth