[eigen]

> he always held that there is a process for changing the Constitution.

during the time Scalia was on the US Supreme Court (1986-2016), there was 1 amendment to the US constitution (27th) that was took 202 years for approvals. since I don't think he could be considered naive, it is almost certain he was disingenuous.

[jack_h]

Why would he 'almost certain[ly]' be disingenuous? He stated in at least one interview that he believed the amendment process was too onerous in its requirements.