>

I know, I guess saying it's unconstitutional is a way of shortening the reasons. It is an appeal to authority. If I want to do kill someone, you say it's illegal, I view that as a shorthand to say look for the reasons we wrote this as a rule.
Ii could tell you a free press is a constitutional right, because I don't want to get into how having a free press puts scrutiny on the political system, and tells us when they are being shady.
I don't feel like getting into details so I just say police beating up a reporter for standing nearby with a camera is unconstitutional.
/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2) The constitution is outdated.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. >

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. >

I'm addressing the transmission of that idea to other people who won't apply the same level of thought and nuance that you have, that's my fundamental issue with your defense of impractical goals. 
Some people won't realize it's not achievable and that's going to drastically affect their behaviors. Either they become radicals or they become disillusioned. >

I think it does far more harm to tell people that just because something would be difficult that means it's bad to want it or to strive for it.  Give me a room full of people who don't think that critically and I'm far more concerned with those who are talked to by people declaring "because it's the law there's no reason to even talk about it" than people declaring "it being the law isn't by itself a good enough reason to oppose something." >

In the context of world peace it's not difficult it's impossible, this is an important distinction. 
Making a change to the constitution or a law is difficult but not impossible. In this context I 100% agree with you. 
So it depends what we are talking about. >

OP was pretty clear that they were talking about being for or against something solely based on the constitutionality of it.
The person I responded to was trying to go down this path of achievable goals vs unachievable goals, except it still doesn't make sense to be against world peace just because it's not achievable.  Like as a practical matter, what situation do you think someone is going to bring up "world peace" where they aren't making a broader point about larger unattainable goals with lesser goals that are more achievable? >

"Its unconstitutional" is generally a charge leveled against an attempted change that is *not* a constitutional amendment. To the best of my knowledge, no current gun bills are submitted as an amendment.
That alone entirely dispenses with #3.
Yes, you could absolutely file an amendment, and be within the proper procedures. Nobody is, and is intentionally using other procedures instead. Complaining about that is entirely valid.
​
As for #2, if the constitution is no longer binding, then what authority does our government have to make any law whatsoever? The Constitution is where government authority is derived. Toss it, and what remains? nothing. Yes, it was imperfect, and it was amended, but amending is not ignoring. If you wish to disband government and start anew, why and how? 
​
Last but not least, for #1, "Big tech censoring conservative voices is unconstitutional," has turned out to be, per the Twitter files, government directly making payment to corporations so that they would censor the list of people the government wished to be silenced. The idea that constitutional protections can be circumvented by the government simply paying another entity to do a prohibited act on its behalf. For instance, since the government cannot restrict freedom of speech, paying a third party security force to beat protestors on its behalf would be unconstitutional. >


per the Twitter files, government directly making payment to corporations so that they would censor the list of people the government wished to be silenced.

Could you provide a source for this for me? >

Just look up the twitter files. After Elon took over he released a bunch of internal twitter data to private smaller journalists who exposed a LOT about govt influence on censorship on twitter. Accounts being shadow banned, specific posts being suppressed, etc. It stands to reason other social media companies also do this, but we only have explicit evidence for twitter. 
There were multiple parts of the Twitter Files and they are very easy to find with a simple google. >


"Big tech censoring conservative voices is unconstitutional," is just a false statement.

True, but people were saying the government was in on it, which would be unconstitutional.

It was written about 250 years ago and supported the enslavement of Blacks and the second-class citizenship of women.

We fought a civil war over the first thing and fixed the second. 

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

Which is incredibly difficult, on purpose.  You would need 38 states to agree to the amendment.

We can't ban assault weapons because it would be violating the 2nd amendment?

We can't ban assault weapons because no one can agree on what an assault weapon is. >


True, but people were saying the government was in on it, which would be unconstitutional.

Did the government pass any laws about it? No? Then it wasn't unconstitutional.

We fought a civil war over the first thing and fixed the second.

That supports my point.

We can't ban assault weapons because no one can agree on what an assault weapon is.

This is another bullshit reason. Obviously we could just make a list of weapons and ban them. Obviously. >


Did the government pass any laws about it? No? Then it wasn't unconstitutional.

You could make an argument it falls under compelled speech.  

Obviously we could just make a list of weapons and ban them.

Banning guns by name doesn't work.  The just tried this recently.  The bill banned a gun on one page, then unbanned it 10 pages later. >

Lol which bill was that? >

I believe it was HR 1808 >


"Big tech censoring conservative voices is unconstitutional," is just a false statement.

The argument is more so that banning one side of speech in such a public forum because one side of the government is working with that public forum is unconstitutional. If I break the rules on social media and I just so happen to be conservative, I wasn't censored because I was conservative. However, when you ban an entire narrative because people in the government are paying you to do so indirectly, or placing pressure on you to ban that narrative for political gain, you have a pretty solid argument that this is against the principles intended by the constitution. That would be my main argument, it concerns the principles, not the literal piece of paper. 

We should not be treating it like some infallible document.

We don't, but we highly consider a lot of what was decided within the constitution to be inalienable rights. Referring to the constitution has probably saved us from thousands of unjust laws, and quite possibly death by the millions. It allows us to not have to have unbelievably in depth conversations regarding basic human rights. 

In fact, if that happened, you'd suddenly be against owning assault weapons because doing do would be unconstitutional, right?

At this point, you wouldn't be simply amending the constitution, you would be disagreeing with the morals and ethics of millions of people when it comes to being able to protect your own life. Also, by saying "assault weapon", you're doing exactly what you claim others to be doing in this regard. Assault weapons/assault rifles are nearly impossible to obtain, as the the true definition of an assault rifle is a rifle the military would use that has a select fire switch between semi-auto and fully auto. These firearms have been severely restricted since the early 1900's.  Most people were on board with this decision as fully auto is rather unnecessary when it comes to self-defense, however, semi-automatic weapons are definitely nowhere near unnecessary when it comes to self-defense. 

"it's unconstitutional" was never a valid reason to be against something.

I agree in a literal sense that simply saying something is unconstitutional without any further argument is simply an appeal to authority, but for the most part upholding a standard that we're not allowed to assume any further meaning behind referencing the constitution as valid or reasonable is pretty crazy when you boil it down. 
You would have to have a deep philosophical debate on almost every subject surrounding the constitution without being able to refer to it as the basic human rights playbook. >

!delta Sure, when I say it's no valid, I mean saying that it actually goes against the to-the-letter constitution; however, some people may use it meaning that it goes against the spirit of the constitution, which, while I don't care about, is not necessarily an invalid opinion.
​

Referring to the constitution has probably saved us from thousands of unjust laws, and quite possibly death by the millions.

But it has quite definitely cost us deaths by the hundreds of thousands.

At this point, you wouldn't be simply amending the constitution, you would be disagreeing with the morals and ethics of millions of people when it comes to being able to protect your own life.

And not changing the constitution would be costing hundreds of thousands of people their lives. >


And not changing the constitution would be costing hundreds of thousands of people their lives.

This is actually a rather difficult claim to uphold.
(1) well over 50% of all gun deaths are suicides.  Banning assault weapons does nothing to address these deaths.
(2) According to the FBI, of the 43% or so of gun deaths that are unlawful killings, 59% where handguns. 3% of the weapons reported were guns that in one way or another are referred to as assault weapons. The remaining 36% are shotguns, long rifles, and "type not stated."
This means of the 45,222 people who died by firearms in 2020, 584 can be attributed to so-called assault weapons, per the FBI uniformed crime database.
Nearly all of these are indeed mass-shooter events, which make it seem like a great deal more than it is. It captures are imaginations and our fears. But so-called assault weapons are not nearly the threat that, say, 9mm pistols are.
584 is a long way from "hundreds of thousands." If we take the most charitable position of "200,000 is 'hundreds of thousands,' then it will take us roughly 342.4 years for us to get to "hundreds of thousands" of lives saved if we ban assault weapons tomorrow.  
And while I get that your view is about the comment regarding the constitution. When a proposed change (1) doesn't have the possibility of having the beneficial impact people insist it will (as in this case) and (2) there are on-point SCOTUS cases saying it would be unconstitutional, noting that it is an amazing amount of effort to do nothing to solve any particular problem is, in fact, a reasonable argument. There's lots that we can do to save lives lost to gun violence. Banning so-called assault weapons isn't one of those things. The data demonstrates that it would have almost no impact on the number of deaths. >

Love that there has been absolutely no response to this. >


In fact, if that happened, you'd suddenly be against owning assault weapons because doing do would be unconstitutional, right? Of course not: because "it's unconstitutional" was never a valid reason to be against something.

I feel like this is just missing what is being said / meant. When a pro gun person says you can't do something because it's unconstitutional, that's clearly not the reason it shouldn't be done. Their reason why it shouldn't be done is because they like their guns and don't want to give them up. The constitutionality argument speaks to why you can't do anything about it. Yes, you could amend the constitution in theory, but in practice you probably don't have the votes. So whenever someone says "you can't do that it's unconstitutional", what they're very clearly actually saying is "you can't do that without first amending the constitution". And since it's very obvious such an amendment would fail, these two statements collapse into one. >


And since it's very obvious such an amendment would fail, these two statements collapse into one.

But those arguments don't collapse into one. One is an actual argument for why you shouldn't do something. The other is a procedural hurdle. >

But the whole point I was making was that this is a miscommunication between "should" and "could". The usual argument is not that the constitution is why you shouldn't do it, the argument is usually that that the constitution is why you can't do it. I agree that the "argument why you shouldn't do something" doesn't really make sense. But they always have another reason for that, and that's not why they invoke the constitution. They invoke the constitution as a shield. And the difficulty of the procedural hurdle for taking down that shield is extremely relevant! >

This guy never read the Heller decision and wrote this before Bruen. That’s why his ideas on what is legal are laughable. He’s arguing for something the Supreme Court ruled was illegal 7 years before he wrote this. >

That isn't the point. The point is that unconstitutional is used as an argument for why something can't be done. Not that it is unlikely an amendment would pass to allow it. >

? That’s not an argument made in the article you posted? >



Gun control is a violation of the 2nd amendment

Confiscating everyone’s guns would be a violation of the Second Amendment. So would banning all guns outright. I know plenty of people would like this outcome, but let’s face it: It’s isn’t even a remote possibility.
During Obama’s presidency, after every mass shooting, at a school or elsewhere, before anyone could start talking about gun control, we heard it: Obama is coming for your guns! He’s gone, but our guns are still here. Even the staunchest gun control advocates in Congress and in statehouses don’t talk about banning guns.
It’s illegal to commit fraud, or incite a riot, or lie to a police officer. But these aren’t violations of the First Amendment protection of free speech.
The Second Amendment doesn’t give everyone an absolute right to every kind of weapon no matter what forever. We don’t allow grenade launchers or fully automatic weapons. We can certainly limit military style rifles in number, and ensure anyone owning one is really of sound mind, without “infringing” the right of “the people” to “keep and bear arms”.

Nowhere in this point does he mention that an amendment would allow this to happen. He just points out what would or wouldn't be allowed under the second amendment. >

And I’m trying to make clear to you that he doesn’t understand the case law surrounding the 2nd amendment. Look at what he said: 

The Second Amendment doesn’t give everyone an absolute right to every kind of weapon no matter what forever. We don’t allow grenade launchers or fully automatic weapons.

1) the government does allow people to buy grenade launchers, as long as you fill out a Form 4 when you purchase it. The government does allow people to own fully automatic weapons, provided they were made before 1980 (I think, don’t quote me). 
However this is the real meat of the issue: 

We can certainly limit military style rifles in number, and ensure anyone owning one is really of sound mind, without “infringing” the right of “the people” to “keep and bear arms”.

You really can’t. Heller made it clear that the 2nd amendment applies to all weapons that are in “common use”, so the idea that a ban on the most common style of rifle on America would pass muster in court is laughable. Even California, with its draconian laws, is toeing court rulings without appealing, because it knows SCOTUS will cut their laws down. After this article was written, the Bruen decision made it so that no gun law will pass constitutional muster as it stands today if that law is not based in the history of our nation.
My point being, this guy didn’t research what he wrote. >

Ok then you agree with the OP. You aren't arguing that it is correct to argue that something is unconstitutional but rather his other arguments are bad as well. >

The entire basis of the US Federal government is the Constitution. The government cannot infringe upon any of the rights explicitly granted by it.

We should not be treating it like some infallible document.

We don't. We have a legally acceptable way to change it and it is included in there: amendments. We've had 27 so far. It specifies exactly how to do it, and it is complicated, by design. >


The government cannot infringe upon any of the rights explicitly granted by it.

It can with an amendment.

We don't. 

Many do. >

Not according to the 9th Amendment which explicitly States despite the government not in numerating all rights it doesn't undermine the fact that the people still have a right to them even rights that have not been explicitly stated >

So if an amendment repealed the 9th amendment... >

The 9th Amendment does not restrict anything it simply clarifies that regardless of how the government acts the rights are inalienable
Meaning if the government were to become tyrannical the right of the people to exercise their right of revolution would come into play regardless of if it claims legitimacy to the Constitution
The government cannot repeal a natural right or law any more than it can repeal the law of gravity because such things do not originate with humans or human institutions because they predate Humanity and exist with all living intelligent beings in a state of nature >

Meanwhile, in the real world, you really think a tyrannical government is going to care? >

You're missing the point it's not about what the government of any day cares about governments can and do violate people's rights all the time but whether or not those rights are violated has no bearing on whether or not those rights exist >

Rights aren’t metaphysical entities, with some kind of independent existence. They ‘exist’ to the extent that they are recognized as such. You can claim whatever rights you want, if they’re not accepted by relevant other parties they’re just a fiction. >

All law and morals are fiction so saying that rights are fiction isn't an argument against them >


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.

This is the part I want to focus on. When America was founded, yes it was flawed. But it was founded on the core idea of liberty. The Constitution is a testament to the American idea and serves as a means of protecting it. The government in no way can violate out rights in the Constitution, which is hugely important. And over time we have made strides in improving the Constitution through amendments that further liberty.
Strictly claiming "it's outdated, we should get rid of it" is dangerous as it puts our liberties in danger. We've existed for 250 years and have managed to avoid authoritarianism, which is almost certainly due to the Constitution. Take speech, for instance. Many other foreign democracies like those in Canada or Europe have placed limits on what type of speech constitutes "free speech," meaning some speech is illegal, which, in turn, means that they don't actually have free speech. That can't happen here because of the 1st Amendment. 
The Constitution grants us a list of rights and ensures us that, no matter what, the government cannot ever infringe on them. 
And the founding fathers were smart. They knew that a static document wasn't going to work for a nation that was meant to exist for centuries, which is why the Constitution can be amended, but it can only be amended if the amendment serves to further the cause of liberty. 
So, something like slavery, for instance, is obviously an infringement on liberty. At the time when the Constitution was written, it was the norm, but it definitely violated the liberty of thousands of Africans. The 13th Amendment, then, was perfectly fit for the Constitution as it furthered liberty. And, on top of that, it had a precedent in that many of the founding fathers hated slavery. Historically, it's a complex issue on why they allowed it, but many of them certainly weren't fans of it. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was a frequent critic of slavery, stating in "The Notes of the State of Virginia" that "[t]he whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other.”
In other places Jefferson referred to slavery as "a moral depravity" and a "hideous blot" on America. And he wasn't the only founding father to do so. James Maddison, too, was a frequent critic. 
All of this is to say that amendments like the 13th were a natural progression for America, and now that the 13th Amendment exists, owning slaves in the future is impossible as the Constitution protects all Americans from such an evil act. Without the Constitution, it is theoretically possible that slavery could one day be reinstated. >

So I read your post and also read a lot of responses. It seems to me that you are looking at this issue as if time doesn’t exist. 
Basically you’re saying that “argument x” is invalid because in the future it is possible to make it unconstitutional using a future amendment. 
Okay? And that proves your right, how, exactly? Because today no such amendment exists. Therefore it is unconstitutional. That it. That’s the end. There is no amendment that exists. Game over. 
In order to engage in your theory we would need to suspend time. Okay, let’s do that. Now you need to pass the amendment. Why on earth do you think it is possible in the next 100 years that would happen? >

I'm not saying it's unconstitutional. If you actually read the post, you'd know I said that "it's unconstitutional" isn't a valid argument. >

I read your post, as well as many of your responses to others. 
If you had read my response you’d know that. 
Perhaps you’re not understanding exactly what you yourself are saying? >


Okay, so we could pass an amendment that repealed the 2nd amendment and you would be totally on board, right?

But that hasn't happened, so...first you would have to do that. That's what the appeals to the constitution are about. It is much harder to pass an amendment than to pass a regular law. >

So someone's argument is "It's okay to do it so long as a few more people agree on it than you need for most laws?" I don't think that's the case. >

But that’s exactly the point. Ratification requires a higher bar to pass than a regular law - meaning that there needs to be much more public support for an amendment. That still doesn’t mean it’s set in stone just because it’s was ratified as an amendment. It can still be repealed like with prohibition. >

So you do think that's the argument? You think when someone says "it's unconstitutional," you think that means "It's fine as long as 2/3rds of the senate and 38 states approve it?" >

Yes. That’s generally what unconstitutional means. Now, there may be a person who disagrees with a constitutional amendment on moral grounds. It wouldn’t make much sense for them to say that it’s unconstitutional because it’s an amendment. By definition, an amendment is part of the constitution.  However, they could still disagree with it morally. >

Point 3 contridicts point 2. The constitution was written 250 years ago, but it's not outdated because we keep updating it. In fact, we have updated it 27 times.
Even in your example:

supported the enslavement of Blacks and the second-class citizenship of women.

We updated that with the 13th and 14th amendments (abolishing slavery and granting citizenship to everyone born in america, including women and african americans), so it's not outdated in your very own example.
When i disagree with you and say its my constitutional right, I am saying you cannot make a law on it. A small minority can still outvote the majority because it's a basic right as outlined in the constitution.
To pass an amendment, you'd have to make me and many other people agree with you. Otherwise, my rights are protected from majority opinion >

Something can both be alterable and outdated., We haven't updated it in 30 years and haven't made any really meaningful change in over 50. >

Does it need to change more often? Its designed to be resistant to change unless it's heavily agreed upon. To change more often than that would be silly. It defeats the purpose of the document. 
So what is outdated about it today? It can't be gun bans because it's too heated of a debate to win 2/3 the vote.
Most gun control doesn't even fall under the 2nd, the courts only recognize outright banning weapons as a violation. Most americans advocate for more reasonable gun control than bans, so why would banning even be a consideration as an amendment? >

1) I don't think you can make a blanket statement like a certain kind of censorship isn't unconstitutional.   There is free speech, and as you say, the constitution was written quite some time ago, so it can't be expected to cater to the internet or other things that weren't even dreamed of at that time.   So it is up to the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court to determine if a law, or action is or isn't unconstitutional, based on what the court believes the intent of the constitution was.
2) The constitution is outdated only in that there are things that could not have been anticipated, but it is a framework.  Also, the constitution didn't "support the enslavement of blacks" but banning slavery wasn't possible if there was any chance to get the constitution passed in the first place.   Those elected can propose changes, and with enough support of those elected by the people, the constitution can change.  That doesn't mean the Consitution is outdated.  It just means it can be updated.
One important thing to keep in mind is that those elected to office have sworn to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, so while they can propose modifications, anything they do that is clearly in violation of it, is grounds for relinquishing their office, which needs to happen more often, honestly.
3)  This part is correct, but once an amendment is passed by 3/4 of the states, it becomes constitutional, so you can't just do something unconstitutional because you think the constitution is wrong.  
This may be an unpopular opinion on this forum, but the constitution is an amazing document and largely the reason our country is often the envy of many others.  Are we perfect? No.  But there aren't throngs of Americans illegally trying to emigrate to other countries for a better life. >

If a rule change is ultimately going to be overturned by the courts then the only reason for doing so is to virtue signal to your tribe. If you're interested in doing actual legislation then you have better things to spend your time on. 
Not to mention that there's a backlash effect, the excess of GWB led to Obama, the excesses of Hilary led to Trump, the excesses of Trump led to Biden and a democrat majority for two years...pursuing goals that are fruitless may end up motivating the other side in a way that destroys your ability to set legislation going forward. IMO passing extremely restrictive abortion legislation cost the Republicans the Senate majority and now they have two more years of Democrats approving all of Biden's judge nominees...were they actually made better off by proposing that legislation or are they now worse off for doing so? >

You're right, "it's unconstitutional" is technically a legal, not ethical, argument. But I think it's worth considering that the people who bring it up believe that the law still represents a moral stance that they hold, which is essentially the idea that gun ownership is an important individual right that should be preserved in the law. >

Is "it's a violation of human rights" a valid reason not to do something?  We can of course do things even if they violate human rights and can also amend lists of human rights if we want. >

The second amendment was put in place to ensure the state is afraid of revolution. I know it has negative side effects but it also prevents what I view as even worse atrocities. 
The purpose of guns are not for hunting but to prevent government dictatorships. >

That doesn't mean that "it's unconstitutional" is a valid argument, which is the CMV.