[Lord T Hawkeye]

I appreciate the effort in the video, it does share clarifications and ideas that are meaningful. However, his take on constitutional interpretation boils down to, "this is the only interpretation I can personally develop with my qualifiers, therefore all other interpretations must be wrong." Unfortunately, that is pretty much the argument everyone else makes in asserting their interpretations, so he really doesn't get any special assumption that his is right.

Actually he does because that's what the constitution says. The constitution is not the bible, it is in fact VERY clear in it's instructions. As he pointed out, it's supposed to restrict all branches of government but how can it when said branches can make it mean whatever they want to? The rule of law must not be subject to whims. Even in the case of jury nullification, majority rule still doesn't win the day. It must be unanimous. Not perfect? Sure but what is?