His point stands regardless, however; the Constitution is not very ambiguous in a lot of wording, but ambiguity has been applied and stacked over top of it due to decades -- really centuries now -- of contradictory laws and SCOTUS decisionmaking as well as various legal and philosophical arguments detracting from it, perverting it and complicating it.
When people have to see and dictate things like "intent" and apply modernity to it in accepted arguments that change the fundamental understanding of vast swaths of people, things have gotten quite sketchy.
You're absolutely right, and they're based.
His point stands regardless, however; the Constitution is not very ambiguous in a lot of wording, but ambiguity has been applied and stacked over top of it due to decades -- really centuries now -- of contradictory laws and SCOTUS decisionmaking as well as various legal and philosophical arguments detracting from it, perverting it and complicating it.
When people have to see and dictate things like "intent" and apply modernity to it in accepted arguments that change the fundamental understanding of vast swaths of people, things have gotten quite sketchy.