system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Quoting the amendments is not a valid deciding argument in a discussion about what laws should be.

I have seen in many CMV comments sections, highly upvoted comments where their entire point boils down to "but the x^th Amendment" (where x is usually the first or second). I do not believe this to be a valid argument when the entire point of the CMV is about what the laws *should* be. Yes, what the laws state now is relevant in the sense of gauging the difficulty to transitioning to ideal laws, but it isn't a counterargument to the validity of a new idea.

The amendments are, after all, merely some special laws. They have been added to, changed and some repealed, thus proving that they are not the be all and end all.

An analogy for my point would be if there were a discussion along the lines of "I believe that chess would be better if you could only castle on your queen's side" and somebody replied with "The rules state that you can castle on either side." Yes, they do say that. However, this is a discussion about what the rules should be, not what they currently are. 

Similarly, "The x^th Amendment says y" is not a decisive argument when discussing what laws *should* be.
gpt
In the US all law must comply with the Constitution. If it violates the constitution it is not valid as a law. Therefore it is absolutely valid to quote that amendment and the rights it protects as a reason for the law to not be made. In other words if it violates the constitution it should not exist.