Conservative Republicans/tea partiers fancy themselves as "Constitutionalists" -- devoted to the original 1789 document and leery of subsequent amendments and any attempt by federal judges to interpret the Constitution in light of modern realities.
Rick Perry is appealing to the GOP far-right base as a "Constitutionalist" who wants to change the Constitution itself, and how it's been interpreted for decades.
Chris Moody at Yahoo's The Ticket examines that irony in a post entitled "Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution."
Details, below.
Perry wants a handful-and-a-half of new Constitutional amendments, at least that's what his ghostwriter argued in Perry's presidential campaign book Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington.
The seven Perry amendments are: Ending lifetime tenure for federal judges; giving Congress the power to override Supreme Court decisions by a two-thirds vote; repealing the Sixteenth (income tax) and Seventeenth (direct election of Senators) Amendments; balanced budget; and outlawing same-sex marriages and abortion.
None of these can get remotely close to the required two-thirds in both House of Congress, but that does not matter to Perry -- his proposals are red meat to the GOP/tea party base that votes religiously in Republican presidential primaries/caucuses.
One of those religious voters, a tea partier whose family meal ticket is provided by tea party Rep. Chris Gibson, NY-20, especially likes going after federal judges (even though most of them these days were appointed by Republican Presidents):
I agree with all (seven) of them. Judicial activism clearly violates the constitution, so he doesn't really want to change the document but have its meaning enforced. Judges who are activists are not "behaving good" and should be derobed.
The fact that Republican Supreme Court justices have been remarkably activist lately (Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, etc.) on her side does not trouble her, because they were "behaving good."
Thankfully, none of Perry's proposed amendments have any real support among the general electorate, which would be politically necessary for them to be added to the Constitution.
For someone who professes to love the Constitution, Perry essentially argues that it sucks, because it does not comport with what right-wing Republicans want these days -- first of all, as always, no taxes on rich people; historically bribeable state legislators choosing U.S. Senators; and finally delivering for the anti-woman, anti-LGBT Religious Right.
Perry's Constitutional extremism, which extends to his view that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional, is extremely unpopular outside the 25 percent GOP base.
Which makes him, IMHO, easily beatable in a general election.