Opining

Seeing as I am a Constitutional scholar now... being all erudite and everything...

In the first place, the Constitution was supposed to be a plain-text contract between The People and the newly constituted government.

The plain text meaning is the intended meaning and reading it like a modern union contract was not envisioned by its authors.

It was their hope (they left notes) that any reasonably well informed voter could be their own Constitutional Scholar and see the plain meaning for themselves.

I'm not a legal scholar.

I'm a history buff.  An auto-didactic polymath, in fact.

Reading the history of how the Constitution came to be and the notes of the men who authored it brought me to my opinions on the matter.

And opine I shall, in brief or at length as is my wont.

I'm probably not going to give links or footnotes, you're free to do a guided missile destroyer (being cute here, DDG or Duck Duck Go) search for the very same materials I've read.

I've less regard for court cases which stand in conflict to the plain meaning of the text and consider them to be in error.  "The Supreme Court is wrong," is not an impossible statement.  They've admitted error on several occasions, though they are loath to do so.