Though I can see why you like the article, since it so well states your "Social Security is unconstitutional but that does not mean we want it abolished; here are all the reasons it should be anyway...:" argument. Perry parrots the same refrain, reminding me that the GOP tends to think with one brain (usually Cheneys.) Of course, if we read the whole article we find a familiar theme of New Deal policies: Huge congressional majorities passed and FDR signed bills automatically struck down by nine men appointed by Harding, Coolidge and Hoover as part of their overall laissez-faire policies. The policies that led to the Depression, 25% unemployment, desperate Europe turning to fascist dictators and, ultimately, the Second World War. After four years watching nine men singlehandedly thwart the expressed will of an overwhelming majority of the American public, FDR proposed a law immediately adding six justices to the bench to end the stalemate. The public and even his partys congressional delegation reacted with shock and horror, but the point was made, and the SCOTUS ceased routinely "unlegislating" from the bench. A consequence was that the SCOTUS has already ruled Social Security constitutional, along with most of the rest of the New Deal.

None of which changes the facts: Calling Social Security unconstitutional can only mean one the speaker wants to:

1) ignore the Constitution or
2) abolish Social Security.

I think if you ask 100 people at random you will find 99 of them say both of those positions are extremely radical, so take your pick.