A check of basic definitions provides the answers.

“A constitutional document is a document pertaining to a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.”

As anybody can see, the treaty does not have fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state may be run.

About 30 years ago a judge wrote out a list of feel-good statements and asserted that these were treaty principles.

Ever since then, numerous others have tried to assert that the treaty is a constitutional document.

Strictly speaking, the “Treaty” is not even a treaty, because a treaty is a formally concluded and ratified agreement between STATES.

The occupants of NZ in 1840 could not be described and the chiefs could not be described as a state, or even a confederation, because some of the members of the so-called confederation were fighting with each other.

The people who put together the new treaty display are seriously misguided because they regard the so-called declaration of independence as a constitutional document as well.