# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Best argument against liberals claiming the Constitution is irrelevant?

## Patriot123

So you get into an argument with a liberal. You bring up healthcare. You say it's unconstitutional, and they say it is via the welfare clause. You both argue, and eventually the liberal just winds up saying that even if healthcare, or any other big government liberal idea or program were unconstitutional, it shouldn't matter as they're all for the "common good" of the country, and that the Constitution is irrelevant -- and that sometimes, maybe, just maybe, it should be infringed upon for the better good of the country.

So what can you say to this liberal to counter his argument, and win? Keep in mind all the things he or she might say in response.

----------


## raystone

If it's that important, then the constitution should be amended to reflect it, as it's been done 27 times earlier.   (I realize it's wrongfully been amended many times)

----------


## Todd

Teach them what the general welfare and common good meant according to the founders.  And remember in the end it's probably gonna be a flame war and you probably can't win this argument anyway. 

Then use the "against me argument". 

YouTube - New Hampshire Liberty Forum - Keynote Speaker: Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio (Part 1)

----------


## fletcher

Do you really need to point out the stupidity of their argument?  I think it speaks for itself.  If the Constitution is irrelevant there is no rule of law.  The government can do whatever it likes: take your property, lock you up, kill you, etc.  They are arguing for unlimited government power.  Ask them if they would be OK with George Bush having unlimited government power.  I highly doubt it.

----------


## Mini-Me

I'll just make a few general points here:
If the Constitution can be overridden in any case, it can be overridden in all cases.  The Constitution is intended to limit government not for the hell of it, but for the sake of the people.  If we ignore this, that makes government unlimited by default...and where does unlimited government lead?  After it goes too far (by not only our own standards, but by socialists' standards as well), how will said liberal argue in favor of restraining it again?  Are we to just play everything by ear, legislating any arbitrary law that's supposedly for the "greater good," regardless of how it affects the liberty of individuals?  After all, the most totalitarian governments of all time did everything they did in the name of the supposed "greater good" and claimed compassion.  If that's the metric we're going by, where is the stopping point?  Unlimited government undermines the entire purpose of this country and renders "land of the free" a completely ridiculous slogan.

Ordinary citizens are constantly expected to follow the letter of the law to the 't,' and ignorance is considered no excuse.  The government enforces this at gunpoint, yet these laws have far less authority than the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.  When we let government violate the Constitution, we're essentially saying it is okay for government to act in a completely lawless fashion, when it expects the complete opposite from us.

On top of that, it's important to remember that the Constitution is a contract between the federal government and state governments; when one side of a contract is permitted to violate its contract with impunity, but the other is not, what kind of behavior does this double-standard encourage?

----------


## Deborah K

1. Ask them why -specifically- the Constitution is irrelevant.  Make them give you examples.  They probably have no clue what's in it so they won't be able to answer the question.

2. Ask them what form of gov't they want?  One that practices rule of law, or one that practices rule of men. 

3. Ask them if they think healthcare is a right, then isn't food, shelter, and clothing?  What do people need more?  And who should pay for it?

4. If they believe in redistribution of wealth, you lead them into the socialism trap.  Describe the difference between collectivism(socialism) and individualism (capitalism).  One equals freedom and the other equals slavery.

----------


## foofighter20x

Hahaha...I just had this same discussion with the moron in charge of the Political Science Honor Society of my own University.

So sad he doesn't know American Constitutional or legal history.

----------


## jsu718

You say "laws are irrelevant" and then shoot them in the face.'

Note: This post is sarcasm and not intended to be an invitation to use violence as an argument.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

Here is the single BEST argument:

Article V.

----------


## newbitech

You can't argue with a person who thinks that the supreme law of the land is irrelevant.  You just have to wait until they are abused and have their rights trampled, then you simply remind them that even tho this is what they asked for, you will still stand by them to defend their rights and welcome them to the club.  

It sucks, but that's just the way it is.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

A better argument is that government has no history of competently managing anything (and shouldn't exist at all, but that's a side argument). JMHO

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> A better argument is that government has no history of competently managing anything (and shouldn't exist at all, but that's a side argument). JMHO


That argument doesn't work.  Liberals don't believe that.

But most liberals don't know about Article V.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The best argument in my opinion, is making it a moral one first:
> 
> Rule by law or Rule by man?
> 
> If government doesn't have to follow the law and does whatever it wants on the whims of man history is on your side.  There are plenty of civilizations and nations ruled by men that have not survived the rule of men.
> 
> If it's rule by law then you can attack flawed constitutional interpretation logically based upon the principals of the founders.
> 
> Such as in my hypothetical platform in this thread:
> ...


This argument is unlikely to have any effect on a liberal.

----------


## slothman

So all liberals don't have any clue about the Const. but all non-liberals do know?
Some liberals are in fact good.
Unless you define a liberal as someone who is pro-Obama and for money redistributing.
[flame]A classic fallacy of definition.


P.S. I foed you since you seem to be biased against liberals.
You will probably put me on your ignore list for that reasan(sp).[/flame]

----------


## Patriot123

Well, what if the liberal then says something like, "you act like a lawyer," and "no US president to date has become a dictator similar to Hitler or Stalin, and sometimes presidents need to infringe upon the law for the better good of the country." And that "the Constitution is a basis for our laws, but when a proper time comes about, the president has the moral authority to infringe upon it," and lastly that "the people can decide what they see as wrong or right as they have in the past with things like the Patriot Act."

And as a side note, I don't think pointing out Lincoln is a good idea -- many liberals adore Lincoln, and see him as an example of this argument, I think.

----------


## foofighter20x

Ask them if the Bill of Rights is relevant.

If they say yes, then they will have contradicted themselves, since the BoR is a part of the Constitution.

If even one part of the Constitution is relevant to modern politics, then the whole document is.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So you get into an argument with a liberal. You bring up healthcare. You say it's unconstitutional, and they say it is via the welfare clause. You both argue, and eventually the liberal just winds up saying that even if healthcare, or any other big government liberal idea or program were unconstitutional, it shouldn't matter as they're all for the "common good" of the country, and that the Constitution is irrelevant -- and that sometimes, maybe, just maybe, it should be infringed upon for the better good of the country.
> 
> So what can you say to this liberal to counter his argument, and win? Keep in mind all the things he or she might say in response.


It's hard to use facts and logic on a liberal, because they rely mostly on emotional appeal.   Perhaps try turning the tables and give a scenario in which a "Conservative" could use his own argument to do something that liberals don't like.  This won't guarantee a win, but it will probably frustrate him to be forced into logical thinking. LOL!

----------


## SimpleName

> You say "laws are irrelevant" and then shoot them in the face.'
> 
> Note: This post is sarcasm and not intended to be an invitation to use violence as an argument.


Good point though. Best way to totally screw with them has got to be a situational argument. Tell them they can no longer claim Republicans are fear mongering. They can no longer express the superiority of universal healthcare or denounce big corrupt corporations. All public political speech has been banned beyond politicians themselves. Tell them they can't go on about religion's negative effects on society. They are now forced to go to a Lutheran church, attending every Sunday. They are no longer allowed to shop, work or have parties on Sunday while Saturday is viewed as a day of preparation and in-church prayer is mandatory every day at 10 am. To top it off, let them know they can't protest any of these measures. And this is just what can happen without the FIRST AMENDMENT! 

They'll probably just refuse to accept the idea, but it'll sink in and the possibilities will eat away at them I'm sure, especially if you continue and tell them about a lack of jury trial, the introduction of a dictator (call him BUSH) as well as the dictator's calls to put all homosexuals in concentration camps. Without boundaries, anything can happen. That is key.

----------


## Deborah K

Try showing your liberal friends this series:Collectivism vs. Individualism

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Good point though. Best way to totally screw with them has got to be a situational argument. Tell them they can no longer claim Republicans are fear mongering. They can no longer express the superiority of universal healthcare or denounce big corrupt corporations. All public political speech has been banned beyond politicians themselves. Tell them they can't go on about religion's negative effects on society. They are now forced to go to a Lutheran church, attending every Sunday. They are no longer allowed to shop, work or have parties on Sunday while Saturday is viewed as a day of preparation and in-church prayer is mandatory every day at 10 am. To top it off, let them know they can't protest any of these measures. And this is just what can happen without the FIRST AMENDMENT! 
> 
> They'll probably just refuse to accept the idea, but it'll sink in and the possibilities will eat away at them I'm sure, especially if you continue and tell them about a lack of jury trial, the introduction of a dictator (call him BUSH) as well as the dictator's calls to put all homosexuals in concentration camps. Without boundaries, anything can happen. That is key.


As an anarchist, I'd like to argue with your statement a bit.  The issue is not so much a lack of boundaries as a defenseless citizenry.  If TPTB had reason to fear us, they wouldn't pull $#@! like Obamacare.  (I'll save my long-winded anti-State rant for another thread)

----------

