Of course, as I said in my very next paragraph, there are widely acknolwedged rules or principles of construction, some of which are related to what he cited. But then, he applied even those rules/principles incorrectly, so he was wrong in any case.
Who is not a lawyer?
By the ideals of our Founders and many generations after, any good man or woman can and even must be able to make a fine legal argument, to craft as solid as technical argument in law and theory of law as any. Yes, it is that long practice of law before the courts, that membership in active and scholarly professional societies, that training in a school dedicated to such training, count for something, in some cases can count for a lot.
Yet with some ad-hoc scholarship, access to a reasonable body of law and attention to detail any citizen of intelligence and clear mind can equal an argument of the best of any esteemed or accredited professional.
You have taken the short cuts here, and used a overly narrowed construct applied in some places and scopes of the practices in this intellectual field, to limit the more general, the more foundational and basic.