Definition
"Constituted" in legal usage is the past-participial form of "constitute" and functions in two principal ways:
1. As a descriptor of authority and office: Describing powers, bodies, or officers that have been formally established, appointed, or organized under a constitution or governing instrument. A "constituted authority" is one created by and deriving its legitimacy from the constitutional order — as distinguished from the originating or constituent power that brought it into being.
2. As a general operative verb in legal instruments: Used throughout statutes, contracts, and formal documents to mean "established," "appointed," "created," or "composed." A court may be "constituted" by statute; an agent may be "constituted" by a power of attorney; a quorum may be "constituted" by the presence of required members.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Simple past and past participle of "constitute" — meaning made up of, or formally established.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To set up or establish; to give formal existence to; to appoint to an office or function; to make up or compose.
The common and legal meanings are close, but legal usage carries additional weight: "constituted" in a legal instrument is a term of art signaling formal, operative establishment under recognized authority. Where ordinary usage might treat "constituted" and "created" as freely interchangeable, legal drafting uses "constituted" to emphasize derivation from a founding instrument or delegating power — not merely existence, but legitimacy of origin.
Common Confusion
The distinction between "constituted authority" and "constituting authority" is easily overlooked but legally significant. The constituting authority is the originating sovereign or founding power — the people acting through a constitutional convention, for example. The constituted authority is the downstream institution or officer created by that act. Conflating the two can distort analysis of delegation, separation of powers, and the scope of governmental legitimacy, particularly in historical materials where this distinction was more explicitly maintained.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers will encounter "constituted" most frequently in three contexts, each presenting different interpretive challenges:
First, in constitutional and public law materials, particularly pre-twentieth-century sources, "constituted authorities" is a recurring phrase for governmental officers and bodies acting within their lawful grant of power. The phrase marks a conceptual boundary: constituted authority acts within a framework it did not create and cannot unilaterally alter. This distinction matters when reading founding-era documents, early state constitutional debates, and treatises on sovereignty.
Second, in private law instruments — powers of attorney, agency agreements, corporate formation documents — "constituted" signals the formal act of appointment or creation. A principal "constitutes" an agent; a corporation is "constituted" by its charter. In historical instruments, this language was more formulaic and standardized than modern equivalents, so researchers should not read significance into its presence beyond the operative legal act it describes.
Third, corpus researchers should be alert to the difference between "constituted" (having been formally established) and "constitutional" (conforming to constitutional requirements). Older legal writing sometimes used "constituted" in contexts where modern writers would say "constitutional" or "duly authorized." This slippage can create false matches and misleading readings in keyword searches.
Anderson's cross-reference to "AUTHORITY" is a meaningful navigational signal: the term is most productive when researched alongside the doctrine of delegated and derived authority rather than treated as a standalone entry.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's entry is the more substantive of the two sources. It draws the constituted/constituting distinction explicitly and frames "constituted authorities" as the operative government — officers appointed under the constitution to govern, protect rights, and maintain the social order — set against the constituting authority that organized them or delegated power to them. This framing reflects the natural-law and social-contract vocabulary of classical legal thought, where the legitimacy of governmental action depended on traceable derivation from the sovereign founding act.
Anderson's entry, which simply redirects to "AUTHORITY, 2," offers no independent content but confirms that the term's legal significance is subsumed within the broader doctrine of authority. Together, the two sources suggest that by the late nineteenth century, "constituted" as a standalone term was treated as definitionally stable and well-understood — requiring cross-reference rather than extended exposition.
Neither source addresses the private-law usage (instruments of appointment, agency, corporate formation) in depth, which is a gap researchers working in transactional or commercial history should note. For that usage, sources on powers of attorney and agency doctrine are more productive.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Constitutional Avoidance — The Doctrine of Avoiding Constitutional Questions (The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia): Relevant for researchers tracing how courts navigate questions about the scope and limits of constituted authority, particularly where constitutional questions about the legitimacy or reach of a governmental body are implicated.