Don't get me wrong, I still think that it's absurd, and your concise summary above was fairly accurate :). It's just that some absurdities actually do have meaningful justifications that are not merely post factum apologetics.

But they're still bad justifications! This whole "judicial deference" thing runs counter to the fundamental reason why written constitutions even exist in the first place, IMO. So I wouldn't call it protecting the integrity of the constitution - quite the opposite, in fact, I think it leads to an inevitable conclusion that constitution is just something unnecessary that gets in the way of things.