The Constitution - and any so-called "legitimate" document/government - fails when one group of people assumes authority over another group of people without the latter's consent. If a person has not granted any consent to be ruled over by another, then there is no "rightful" or "lawful" legitimacy to such a claim.

If we are going to play along with such a facade and also remain logically consistent, then any person or group of people can claim rightful authority over anyone else and their claim of legitimacy would be literally and logically no different than the current "legitimate" powers. If such a claim is rejected, then the basis for rejection would be completely contradictory and hypocritical.