You're off on a tangent and obsessing about style over substance. There are also plenty of Democrats who "mention" the constitution, that living, breathing document that allows them to do anything they desire. Nancy Pelosi "mentions" it, Obama "mentions" it, and Sheila Jackson Lee "mentions" it and the "good and plenty clause".
Far better to listen to the actual policy proposals of candidates and have some ability to evaluate them than being impressed by "mentions" of the constitution.
You think you're making some valid point, but you have the cart before the horse when it comes to the utterances of politicians. They will and do use "mentions" of the constitution to deceive and hoodwink the voters. Voters have to listen to the specific proposals of politicians and then evaluate them based on some knowledge of the constitution.
And, yes, you're still making a straw man argument when it comes to presidential debates.
Correction: It was Representative John Conyers who referenced the “good and plenty” clause of the constitution, not Sheila Jackson Lee.