>

It is absolutely a feature.  It was written with intent.  There has to be overwhelming support for a change for that change to occur.  The founders didn't want a country where a group of citizen's rights could be taken away by a mere majority of the citizens.
/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2) The constitution is outdated.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. >


"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 >


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. >


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". >


The necessary support to repeal the amendment would require a restructuring of the whole cultural identity of the country.

By this reasoning, anything that a large enough group of people hold to be sacred (i.e. a core component of their associated cultural identity) would be defacto out of reach, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of that sacred tenant. >

You realize that's a feature of the Constitution and not a bug, right? >

. . . I'll be honest, I don't know whether to take this seriously or not.