Mike Lee is a constitutional scholar, believe it or not. There's a grain of truth in what he's saying, but he's being very disingenuous. Among the Framers were represented advocates of direct democracy, notably James WIlson, but direct democracy was rejected for fear of mob rule (or you know, just poor people getting power of any sort). I think he's right insofar as in the Declaration of Independence the stated reason for leaving the crown was that it had put undue burdens on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, yes, I think he's correct in that those are the sacred cows of America. However, where he goes off the rails is that the Framers decided that the only way to protect those objectives was through popular sovereignty. So they all agreed that (A) popular sovereignty means that majority rule is the default, and (B) majority rules needs to be checked by hard limits on what laws could be passed. So they said, a simple majority can do X, a super majority is needed for Y, and a few things can't be changed under any circumstance (I suppose short of a whole new constitution).

I think where Lee really loses me is when he goes on to say that these limits were put in place to hedge against power being put in the hands of a powerful few. WTF? The GOP is literally a minority party. They get fewer votes for the House, Senate, and President in almost every election. Who are the "few" to whom he is referring? It sure as shit isn't liberals.