He could have made the point that reasonable people disagree about some Constitutional issues; the main job of a Congressman is to make wise use of the wide spectrum of powers granted under Article I Section III, and to block unwise uses. There is a tension between some provisions of the Bill of Rights and Constitutional obligations to “provide for the common defense,” eg by waging war.

Ellis also joins NJ Gov. Christie in denouncing “libertarianism.” Many of his conservative-Republican economic talking points are not that different from libertarian. Many of his most enthusiastic outside backers oppose not libertarianism in general, but rather crypto-pacifism, a view held by many but by no means all libertarians.

Curiously, Ellis’s issues page makes no mention of security issues.
http://www.ellis4congress.com/issues/

A footnote:
An example of contradiction in the Constitution, not resolvable by textual literalism, was presented in NYT v. Sullivan, an attempt by Alabama segregationists to silence unfavorable press coverage. Under the Seventh Amendment, biased judges and juries had an unquestioned right to enter whatever ruinous libel judgements they chose, without regard to the facts. The USSC, however, recognized that unrestrained prejudiced libel verdicts would nullify free speech under the First Amendment, and chose the First Amendment as the more valuable protection.

Or it might make them *less* politically charged as it would be in each side’s interest to both follow the constitution in the laws it passes, and to confirm predictable Justice’s who will interpret the law in accordance with the constitution. Confirming an extremist will mean your opponents will then have to confirm one of their own in rebuttal (when their time in power comes) and your pension will inevitably go “poof!”

Of course, all of this presumes rational behavior….