While The Don may have legitimate complaints about certain actions of particular institutions, it remains unclear to me precisely how these complaints can be elevated to issues about constitutional validity.

I am not saying there can be no basis for the Don's claims but I'd like to see some explanation of the kinds of connections the Don draws. I want the Don to spell out why our federal constitution can or should be read this way. This is a question of constitutional interpretation.

I am especially interested to know why it is thought that the constitution safeguards free-market principles, because to be honest, this particular claim of his seems far-fetched.

Would such principles be sustained under the rubric of equal protection under Article 8(1) which guarantees equal protection under the law? If so, I'd like to know how. Couldn't an argument be grounded in equal protection to challenge gross economic inequality?

In fact, equal protection is often marshalled as a basis for affirmative action, a position that appears to be in tension with the Don's claim about free-market values as being virtually sacrosanct and somehow constitutionally protected.

To be fair, I can empathise with the general impulse to suggest that the constitution is a morally significant document and that attempts to undercut its status are therefore problematic but I think it's important that the dots be clearly connected if we want to make an argument about what the document requires.

If there is no adequate response to the question about how the constitution should be properly read, the moral stature of the constitution could be used to lend legitimacy to otherwise morally questionable claims.

In the absence of a clear explanation of constitutional interpretation, the document becomes a convenient but meaningless crutch which may be marshalled to advance all sorts of spurious views.

Constitutional invocations become no more than glorified table-banging.