Reckless change such as executive orders, congressional overreach, refusing balanced budgets, neglecting national security, failure to uphold existing laws, destabilizes.
Well thought out and executed change does not.
Yet Bigun would get rid of the 16th and 17th Amendments. Can't think of any change more structured and thought out than Constitutional Amendments.
Everyone makes the argument that something done differently would have brought about more positive results, and that (in essence) is true, but they always discount the real possibility that the exact opposite could also come about, and that the opposite result has a 50% probability of happening.
About Romneycare...
The first principle of conservative governance should always be Federalism. Romneycare may not be a conservative action, but the underlying principle of it is certainly as conservative as it can get. The people of the State supported it, the majority of the State legislature supported it, so it was signed into law.
If the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage were to be decided exactly as Romneycare was decided, that would be a conservative way to decide the issues.
Most changes in government come about as a reaction to something happening at the specific time that the change occurred. That's certainly the case with the Constitution; we have a Constitution because the Framers figured out that changes needed to be made to the Articles of Confederation because they weren't working, but due to the unpredictability of change, they ended up scrapping the AoC and ended up with a brand-new Constitution.
Then there are the cases where "well thought out and executed changes" bring about unexpected results.
I am certain that the last thing that the drafters of the XIV Amendment (another one of those "well thought out and executed changes") thought would happen as a result of the Amendment, was that children of illegal aliens born on US soil would qualify for POTUS, yet that's where we are right now.