A constitution isn't a collection of laws. It is the framework that the law resides in. It's like saying that a mathematical axiom is a law of mathematics. That's not actually true. An axiom is a pre-supposition of the mathematical framework that has to be assumed in order for the model to function. Mathematical theorems and laws are derived from the axioms. If the axiom is invalidated, the model fails, and the laws no longer makes sense logically. The constitution serves a similar purpose, it is the framework that makes laws possible. Without a constitution, you have no foundation of law to make laws over.
A constitution isn't a collection of laws. It is the framework that the law resides in. It's like saying that a mathematical axiom is a law of mathematics. That's not actually true. An axiom is a pre-supposition of the mathematical framework that has to be assumed in order for the model to function. Mathematical theorems and laws are derived from the axioms. If the axiom is invalidated, the model fails, and the laws no longer makes sense logically. The constitution serves a similar purpose, it is the framework that makes laws possible. Without a constitution, you have no foundation of law to make laws over.
My pedantic argument stands that they may look like laws, but they are not laws. I don't think it's much of a point of contention, though.