O yes it is. That is why there is an oath of office. This comes down to intent. Scotus is merely meant as a fail-safe

Set in a graph any representative, any senator, any governor, any president, and first consider yourself what you deem is constitutional. Then compare to what the Scotus holds to be constitutional. You' ll be amazed for two reasons:

1. The blatant rift between those who call themselves representatives of the people
2. The blatant rift between the valuation of law by the people vs the valuation of law by the BAR-MEMBERS.

Your equity is totally irrelevant since November '99.

Is it not interesting that the final say would be those who are beholden to a private City of London based temple?

And you want to continue this farce?