Klein expresses the view that the Constitution is "confusing" and really can't be understood because it was written more than 100 years ago. Therefore, he suggests, it means whatever a particular reader wants it to mean
Let's put aside, for a moment, the know-nothing stupidity of claiming that anything written more than a century ago is so impenetrable as to be irrelevant. (Aristotle? The Bible? Chaucer? Shakespeare? Virtually every great thinker and novelist of world history?) Klein said out loud, I think, what a great many progressives believe, and his comments fit well with the progressive dilemma outlined by Paul in the post immediately below. Progressive hostility to the Constitution is perhaps the great under-reported story of American politics.
Besides, he wasn't even born until I gradulated from College. How do you expect him to understand musty old Constitution-y things?
As Crash Davis said in Bull Durham*, I'm not interested in a woman who's interested in that boy.
* Young Ezra was 4 when that film was released.