In their 785-word post, Jeff Rowes and Clark Neily find time to joust with strawmen (I have never, for example, advocated a “wholesale rejection of judicial review”). What they don’t find time to do is a) identify a constitutional provision that compels the courts to impose the policy they prefer on the country or b) lay out the textual or historical analysis that compels their interpretation of that provision. So there isn’t a whole lot to respond to.