>

There's nothing wrong with having an underlying unachievable goal in mind while also taking steps towards achievable goals.  You shouldn't stop thinking world peace is a good goal just because it likely won't be achieved, because the "end point" should always be "world peace."  If you can get closer to that, you always should do so.
/u/gothicgamelabs (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >


3) The constitution can be amended, meaning something that is unconstitutional can be made constitutional.

Your view really can't be changed because it is simply a statement of fact:  "Something that is unconstitutional now won't be unconstitutional if we change the constitution to make it constitutional".  Yep.
It's like looking at a house that is painted gree and saying that it's wrong to call it green because we could paint it red and then it wouldn't be green anymore.  Cool.

2) The constitution is outdated. It was written about 250 years ago and supported the enslavement of Blacks and the second-class citizenship of women. We should not be treating it like some infallible document.

The U.S. Constitution was originally written 250 years ago, but it's wrong to say it is a 250 year old document.  We essentially re-ratify the Constitution every day that we don't amend it.  Since we didn't amend it yesterday, we essentially looked at, as a nation, and said "yep, we're still good with it.  We'll take another look tomorrow".
Just because you don't agree with specific aspects of the Constitution doesn't mean they should be changed.  The method for changing the Constitution is spelled out within the Constitution.  And if we as a country want to change it, we can. >


I think it goes without saying that ALL arguments based on false premises aren't valid. That has nothing to do with constitutionally based arguments specifically. And it shouldn't tar them broadly. We can easily throw out the ones with false premises like we do for any other kind of argument.
The purpose of the constitution is to have a cap on legislative power. It isn't supposed to be infallible, even the people who drafted it were clear they expected it to change. But they expected it to change in a particular manner through a particular process of amendment or constitutional convention which showed that a change was OVERWHELMINGLY favored by the people. The idea was that some values were so central to the nature of the country you didn't want bare majorities to be repealing them because they knew bare majorities of idiots, oppressors and assholes can easily take power.
Sure, the constitution can be amended. But most arguments on the constitutionality of new policies, when fleshed out don't ONLY say that a policy can't be pursuded because it isn't currently constitutional. If you press anyone making these arguments they will add one of two additional premises. Either they will say that the particular part of the constitution in the way of that particular change SHOULDN'T be amended away. Or they will note that the particular part of the constitution is not practically POSSIBLE to eliminate.

For the second amendment as your example, what would be involved in repealing it? One party has made it a core part of their identity. The necessary support to repeal the amendment would require a restructuring of the whole cultural identity of the country. Maybe a noble goal. But if you're just pushing for the policy goal without acknowledging the practical roadblock to achieving it, you may as well push the policy goal of "Let's have world peace". >

There's a difference between pushing for a tangible piece of legislation and stating a desired goal.  The goal is simply what you want to happen, and then from there you could talk about how to actually accomplish that.  Stating that a goal isn't practically possible to achieve doesn't somehow mean that goal isn't good.  "World peace" isn't a bad goal, even if reality tells us we likely won't ever fully succeed. >

Both OP isn't really talking about nice sentiments. They seem to be talking on some level about practicable change. >

Having a tangible goal that directs your practical behavior isn't bad either just because you can't get everything you want. >

It is bad if that goal isn't practical and you either don't amend your goal to the more practical and nuanced version or you don't add on the correct addendums. 
Good ideas get perverted through time because not enough people do those 2 things and instead take the idea at face value.