I think he did a brilliant job in explaining the constitution and how it relates to states rights and more importantly how it relates to he and his families situation. I think what he did is bring his argument to the simplest of terms, and showed that what he is explaining Is clearly common sense if you are an origionalist when it comes to the constitution. So what this case will come down to is weather or not the court and the jurists believe in the constitution and how it relates to states rights and power verses the United States government, will they take the constitution literally or view it as an outdated living document when deciding the verdicts.