I disagree with his take on "the consent of the governed." It undermines his whole thesis, because it was precisely that "consent" that the Revolutionaries thought they were not given---nor even asked for. The entire premise of the Constitution is based on a framework that the laws are derived only by the "consent of the governed." Now, of course NO ONE thought that meant "all the governed," or even (usually) a majority of the governed, but if you go to the origins of the Constitution, namely the drafts of the colonial charters, many of the governors, although they ruled at the appointment of the king, nevertheless were viewed as PURELY serving at the consent of the governed. The Plymouth covenant says so pretty explicitly, since most of these were COMPANIES and the "voters" were really "stockholders."
It is important to realize that the foundations for "consent" at all originated in medieval times as a result of a feudal arrangement between king and vassal, and this arrangement rested almost entirely on the bequeathing of LAND and a TITLE, for which the knights promised service. They did not have a vote, but their first right wa to property, and since then, property has been the foundational right of all the others---even some of the "Natural Rights" theorists saw the human person as "one's own property."
I do agree that the Constitution has become whatever a circuit court in CA wants it to be, and that needs to be reversed.