The Constitution is Supreme Law, and therefore supersedes any/all other laws that may pose a conflict. It staggers the mind that some people want to simply do away with, and forget, The Constitution - which is after all the rule of law - as it is supposed to protect individual rights to life and liberty. (It should also protect the right to justly acquired property, however that is an issue best left for another day.) Is anyone really against the rule of law? We would hope not. Surely, we do not all agree on each and every specific law, however anyone in the U.S. that disagrees with individual rights of life and liberty should perhaps research other countries.
If one has enough time, patience, and boredom to read this sad excuse for critical thinking; then good luck. One problem is the concern that states with wide population disparities each have two Senators. Nowhere in the article however does it mention that the 17th Amendment to the Constitution eroded the intended system of federalism, which would be a far superior system due to the varying complexities of each state. Before the 17th Amendment was ratified, each state had the opportunity to allow their legislature to appoint U.S. Senator's to represent their own state interests. State governments would therefore be much more inclined to appoint (and reappoint if applicable) Senators hesitant to defer state resources and powers to the federal government. The current scheme of legalized bribery by way of earmarks (which also contributed to havoc being wrought on our health care system) does exactly that: defer state powers to the federal government.
With federalism as the main objective states could adapt laws, regulations, and taxes that suited their own needs--as long as they did not violate The Constitution and individual rights of life and liberty. Is anyone really naïve enough to think that the social policies in Vermont should be the same as those in Texas? Should New Hampshire and California maintain the same fiscal policies? Would it be logical to force Utah and New York State to adopt identical policies on personal or economic issues? No - three hundred million plus people would be far better off determining issues that are not covered in The Constitution on a state or local level. Centralized planning always fails. After all, people are allowed to move freely throughout the country, and trying to conform our society to a "one size fits all" lifestyle with identical values and priorities is a social engineering nightmare waiting to happen.
*Time Magazine: the favorite publication of Monday morning, Tuesday morning, Wednesday morning, Thursday morning, Friday morning, and Saturday morning quarterbacks everywhere. Note the Time magazine articles and covers over the years going back and forth between global cooling and global warming are not only contradictory but so incredibly desperate to cause sensationalism and/or panic in order to sell copies to the sheep/readers. We have already stated our views regarding environmental issues: that the underlying goal for everyone should be to minimize waste; if not for environment reasons, then for economic reasons.