Pretty much whenever Americans debate policy, like gun control, or whether hate speech should be illegal, or whatever else, a large amount of people will say but your position is unconstitutional , or my position is in the constitution . Even gun control advocates try to I think misinterpret the second amendment such that they can claim that gun control is constitutional. I don't believe that something being constitutional or not is relevant as to whether or not it should be done. The constitution is an extremely old document, that has had very many things added to it, and other things removed. It couldn't stop slavery. Stefan Molyneux, notable hack, said wrongly, admittedly that the constitution allowed Trump's plan to ban all Muslims from entering the country, and that therefore it was a good plan. How is that acceptable discourse, even if true? There is no denying that the constitution is an impressive document for its time, but, in the modern world, conversations should be based around whether or not something is right or wrong, or good or bad, not around whether or not it can be found or not found in a several hundred year old constantly changing document. It is a baseless appeal to authority, and there is no reason to believe the founding fathers were even close to moral authorities.
The constitution should not be appealed to in modern political discourse