Legally, all government entitites deprive their right to exist and make laws either from a legal entity enshrined by the Constitution or from the Constitution itself. Their legal right to make laws comes from the Constitution. Therefore, a government entity which breaches the Constitution is saying, very simply, "I have the right to make laws because the Constitution- you, the people, must obey. I am going to break the Constitution- you, the people, must obey me anyway."
Although I am not going to try and defend the claim that hypocrisy is morally wrong, the claim that hypocrisy is self-contradictory is in fact tautological. If you are a hypocrite, ergo you are not following a self-consistent moral system. If the government breaks its own Constitution, it isn't.
Honestly, the difference between an unjust constitution and any other unjust law, rule, or what have you is just semantics. There is no strong reason why something enshrined in a constitution has more legitimacy or permanency than any other law, and laws by nature are organic. They change over time. In American history, there are lots of very clear examples (Jim Crow/segregation, etc.).
If you're an ordinary citizen, you have a point here. Refer to my above argument for why it's different if you're the government.
So lets look at Australia then,http://www.peo.gov.au/students/cl/constitution.html
by theirs if they want to change then they need an absolute majority in both houses of the federal parliament and the approval in a referendum of the proposed amendment by a majority of electors nationwide, and a majority in a majority of states.
So lets go to back when the constitution hindered reform of voting rights for aboriginals for the commonwealth elections. So the more progressive states of australia couldn't do what the less progressive states wanted to do.
So the majority of australians was for equal voting rights, but they didn't have them in queensland for instance.
So what you would have is local councils making the "illegal" choice of registering and letting aboriginals vote under the guise that they didn't know they were aboriginals.
Tada, a progressive moral action against the constitution which the local gov reps did.
This was also aided by the big fed gov since they were pro while some state gov was against.
Then some years later it passed the houses, and was put to a referendum which passed with flying colors (pun intended).
See? This isn't about hypocracy or anything silly like that. Its about normal fluency of democracies changing with the time.
If at a later time everything swings back,then the constitution will be first broken, then willfully broken, then changed, to remove such rights.
The local governments derived their legitimacy and their right to be obeyed from (I believe) the States, and indirectly (I'm sure) from the Constitution. They are now willingly breaking said Constitution.
You are assuming that various things (the will of the majority, equal voting rights etc) are inherent goods. How can you justify this?
Agreed, the point being that a country could behave morally in one instance and imorally the next irregardless of constitution and still function normally and still be consistant in its actions as long as most don't disagree.
I've already made my argument on a rational basis, so I'm going to pose a hypothetical to you to try and get some clarification.
-You are a judge in a Constitutional country. To have gotten this far, you will have sworn to uphold the law. A case comes before you in which you are trying a "war criminal"- a mass-murderer guilty for the deaths of, let's say 10,000 people. Said "war criminal" makes an appeal that the law is unconstitutional- in your legal judgement, he is right and under the law he is completely innocent thanks to his exercise of legal powers. (Let's assume for the sake of argument this is right despite international law- say the government hasn't entered into such treaties, or that they entered into them in an unconstintutional way)
-You convict said so-called war criminal. A very unusual group of journalists go up to you and accuse you of undermining the rule of law, breaching your oath of office, and punishing an innocent man. How do you respond?
This scenario may seem absurd, but it is going to extremes to prove a point (also, the only unrealistic thing is the unliklihood of a country that is Constitutional and which has people who want to commit genocide- given suspension of disbelief on that point alone, the country could be Federal and the mass-murderer in charge of one of the States.).
In this scenario, you are clearly a hypocrite- you swear an oath to uphold the law (even though you're unaware it will lead to this situation), you deprive your legal rights from a Constitution you are breaking, and you are part of a system that in theory has rule of law but which in practice you are undermining.