They're not doing it "half way", they're doing it in a way that makes sense in the scope of why they're doing it. They're doing it to remind people what the Constitution says with regards to their jobs as the legislation so that they can hopefully instill a desire to return to practicing constitutional legislative processes...something thing, rightly or wrongly, feel has been lacking.I do think that the notion, as a whole, is stupid and useless and hollow. My argument is that if you're going to trumpet such behavior and then turn around at the last minute and do it half-way, that's even worse than the original useless, hollow stupidity.
With that as the point, there's little purpose in including portions of the constitution that have absolutely no baring on legislating constitutionally because they aren't constitutional provisions any longer. Again, if their goal was simply to give people a history lesson of the Constitution you'd be right...but that was not their stated goal. However, YOU dislike the process and dislike how they're doing it, so you ignore thier own words and reality and instead assume there is only one possible way they could've meant or believed their statement to be and that only YOUR interpritation of how that could be met is capable of being the "non half-way" method of doing it.