To me, the far more interesting thing is how he lets the mask slip regarding the Constitution itself, namely that they are not bound to go through the amendment

To me, the far more interesting thing is how he lets the mask slip regarding the Constitution itself, namely that they are not bound to go through the amendment process, nor even the judicial facade of interpreting how to apply the Constitution to some new circumstance. Instead, he shines a light on what has long been true, that the Constitution means whatever some small but critical mass of powerful people say it means, and the common people will accept it as true. Lysander Spooner had it right 150 years ago: "[T]he Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. ... But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64 http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64