The misreading of period I and II sources pervades all modern discussion and will take several chapters to delineate and document. Under¬ lying all these misreading is our loss of access to the depth of the differences that originally separated fundamental law from ordinary law. Fundamental law used much of the terminology of ordinary law: it was called law, it was spoken of as binding, and violations were termed "legal" or "void." But fundamental law was the attempt to bind sovereign power whereas ordinary, law bound individual action. It was on this ground understood to be a political instrument that could bind only politically and morally, not legally.
