Why Conservatives Should Stop Asking GOP Contenders About Constitutional Amendments

Michael Barone responds to the Rick Perry kerfuffle: 

The Constitution gives the president no role whatever in amending the Constitution. Article V provides two methods for amending the Constitution: two-thirds of both houses of Congress can submit an amendment for ratification by three-quarters of the states, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can call a constitutional convention, whose products must also be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Nothing about the president there at all. He or she has no more power to amend the Constitution than any other citizen eligible to vote for members of Congress.

Nevertheless we hear demands from conservatives that presidential candidates, declared or potential, endorse constitutional amendments. The latest example is the demand by some conservatives that Texas Governor Rick Perry endorse the Family Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit same-sex marriage from being recognized by any state. And we hear repeated calls for presidential candidates to endorse a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Leave aside, for a moment, the merits of these amendments (if anyone cares, I'm against both). Why does it matter whether a presidential candidate or for that matter a president favors a constitutional amendment? 

Barone concludes that "presidential candidates' views on constitutional amendments are irrelevant and should be treated as such." Debate moderators take heed!