Proof in a snarky Politico column of Ramesh Ponnuru's assertion that the mainstream media 1) don't really understand conservative arguments and, 2) Don't really understand the Constitution:
The same candidates promising to appoint strict constructionist judges clearly think the Framers, for all their wisdom and foresight, forgot a few things, which they now want to tack on with an array of proposed constitutional amendments that would bulk up the document.
To hear the Republican presidential candidates tell it, the U.S. Constitution is the guiding light of democracy, a bedrock document so perfect and precise that it shouldn't be challenged, interpreted or besmirched by modern-day judges.
This is pretty much a straw man agrument. Conservatives don't think the Constitution is perfect, merely that it was intended to be and should be our guiding document, the source of authority for the federal government. And being faithful to it means accepting all of it, including Article V specifying how the ducument can be amended. There is no contradiction involved in adhering to the Constitution on the one had and advocating for improving its defects on the other.
The second leg of conservative constitutionalism is this: Courts shouldn't make law.
[. . .]
Are many conservatives inconsistent in their view of the Court's proper role? Sure. Are many conservatives too eager to propose constitutional amendments? Maybe. But is there anything inconsistent about believing that the Constitution -- as opposed to congressional or judicial fiat -- is the law of the land and believing that the Constitution needs to be changed? Not at all.
The Constitution has been "amended" thousands of times by courts that simply ignore the document's plain language or obvious intent. Considering that sad fact, trying to make hypocrites out of conservatives who want to honestly amend the Constitution is just plain silly.
