The Constitution.
All US law emanates from the Constitution, much in the same manner as all Commonlaw emanates from the Magna Carta.
“All US law emanates from the Constitution, much in the same manner as all Commonlaw emanates from the Magna Carta”
I strenuously dispute both points, as English and American law most definitely precedes said documents. Perhaps it is true that English constitutional law emanates from the Magna Carta, but common law goes back to time out of mind. Technically defined as predating 1189, or the start of Richard the Lionheart’s reign, “time immemorial” literally stretches all the way back to the Dark Ages of barbarian Germany. That’s how old English law is.
It may be permissible to say that all U.S. law emanates from the Constitution, as of course there was no U.S. before the Constitution. Anyway, the point is though you are free to define the Constitution as “the Constitution,” to the rest of us it is law (or a series of laws, if you will), just like the Magna Carta is law. I’m not sure why you’ve never come across this basic definition.
“It may be permissible to say that all U.S. law emanates from the Constitution, as of course there was no U.S. before the Constitution”
I hasten to add that this point is open to further interpretation. A host of laws created under the regime created by the Constition don’t pertain to the Constitution persay. I speak mainly of various judicial precedents, congressional statutes, executive acts, and administrative law, which are can be said to be extra-constitutional. Of course, the argument spins around to the fact that the Constitution empowered these agencies in the first place. Hence, even if they don’t follow the Constitution, whatever they do ultimately derives from the Constitution anyway. But I digress.
“which are can be said” = which can be said