All other things aside, I think the author misunderstands what it means to believe in sticking to the Constitution. I'm talking about this:
“We need to restore the Constitution as our standard,” Cruz says on his campaign website.
Then, after the Supreme Court decision last year that made same-sex marriage a right nationwide, Cruz said the Constitution needed a change.
“I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections,” Cruz wrote in an op-ed in National Review. Now, Cruz said, the public would periodically get a chance to throw out “judicial tyrants” with whom they disagreed.
He didn’t actually file that proposed amendment, but a point was made. This was a different kind of conservatism, one in which some policies were so important that the Constitution should adapt to them.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution is following the Constitution. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be changed. There is nothing at all inconsistent about saying you want to follow the Constitution and saying you want to amend it to correct a problem. In this case the problem is that we've got Supreme Court Justices not following the Constitution and it's become clear that some adjustment is needed to get the Judiciary under control.
There's a reference elsewhere in the article with respect to this issue where the author refers to checks and balances. There is no check on the Judiciary right now. The idea of checks and balances is already out of balance due to the behavior or the Judiciary and a Constitutional amendment is the appropriate mechanism for addressing that.
