The difference in my mind is this:
You follow the rules in football only so far as it helps you win the game.
In government, though, following the rules is it's own reward, it has it's own value, because it helps maintain and create a stabler society, less corruption, etc. That's what a Constitutionalist believes, I think. They believe "law" is not just poltiics all the way down, that it is something different and I think it is what I just laid out--a deeper pragmatic view and valuation of a particular society's history and underpinnings of legitimacy (if you lose the latter by not paying enough attention to the former, you create a high risk of revolution and civil unrest).
And as it applies to morality, there is no "winning" or "losing" in comparison to others. Plus, you become what you do; if you do immoral things, even if justified by what you consider a moral end, you make yourself into a type of person that I made my mind up, long ago, I did not want to be.
truthout.org
