To that end, the Framers provided for the peaceful means to do so via Article V.
Although Article V Convention of the States is probably a necessary alternative mechanism for proposing much-needed constitutional amendments these days, I wouldn't quite agree that it would be "the people" exercising such a right if it were to come to fruition. It would be the state legislatures (two-thirds of them) who would petition for such a Convention of the States, but once such a convention were established, it is entirely unclear how the delegates to such a convention would be chosen what voting procedures would be employed at that convention.
The author of the posted article reveals himself to be an advocate of the crooked and dysfunctional status quo of American government by sneering at all creative ideas of new constitutional amendments as if to say "why bother?" The idea of an Article V convention of the states never entered his narrow mind. I've never heard of him before, but I wouldn't be surprised if he were a fatcat elitist.
It is up to the state legislatures to determine the powers and authority of their delegates. Parliamentary procedures are up to the convention.
Here for instance is the Indiana statute that will govern delegate commissions.
What you say about the author may well be true, but he happens to bring up a good point: getting a constitutional amendment passed is extremely difficult and assumes that there is more or less of a consensus on the point in question. No such consensus exists for the topics that conservatives tend to care about.
Voting is like gambling in a casino where the cards are all marked, the slots are all fixed, the dealers are all crooked, and the floor staff are all pickpockets. And expecting that you’ll somehow come out ahead