Myth of the Super-constitution

Normally, all laws within any given jurisdiction ought to conform to some "e;higher"e; legal imperative called a "e;constitution"e;. In modern times, constitutions are usually embedded in a formal document, and laws that fail to meet this standard are held to be "e;unconstitutional"e; and adjudicated null and void. In former times, constitutions often resided in looser terms like "e;natural law"e; and rested on extra-legal foundations such as consecrated customs or religious convictions. However, what happens if the constitution itself is offensive to some deeply ingrained norms within the prevailing culture? Is it possible to override constitutions for failing to meet some elementary standards of decency or moral propriety? In recent memory, critics reviled the Third Reich as a rogue regime in spite of the fact that it meticulously followed its own corrupt policies. Is it possible to maintain the idea that even constitutions must comply with some external standards? Is such a possibility intellectually defensible? Or must we accept the fact that no formal regime is full-proof against the looming threat of human depravity?