Then perhaps Washington or Jefferson would point out the specious reasoning in summary executions for having " (treasonously) knowingly violated the constitution" using a definition of treason which is unconstitutional.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -Thomas Jefferson
If you want to argue that personal liberty should take precedence over the authority of governments, fine.
You can't, however, argue for strict constitutionalism and what appears to be a form of anarchism at the same time.
That the constitution should be treated as a sacred body of law for which an 'improper' interpretation by the government could be a killing offense is not actually a constitutional precept, and it's not one with which the will of the majority would agree, nor is it an interpretation which legal precedent supports, your single, not actually legally binding quote by Thomas Jefferson notwithstanding.
So pick one. If it's the latter, the redefinition of treason is indefensible as a pretext. If it's the former, dispense with the constitution altogether, as it interferes with the efficient execution of popular will.
Does the constitution define all laws? No. There is nothing about petty theft, or murder even. The truth is corruption runs rampant in this country and Jefferson knew that sometimes the only solution to tyranny is the tyrant's head at the end of a pike. This isn't about 'improper interpretations', its about the theft of liberty.