When people use 'you'd have to change the Constitution' as a criticism, they are mostly noting that it's extremely difficult to change the Constitution, and are

When people use 'you'd have to change the Constitution' as a criticism, they are mostly noting that it's extremely difficult to change the Constitution, and are probably not motivated by a deep reverence for the document. The US has the most difficult-to-change constitution of any democracy- you'd have to pass two-thirds majorities in the House & Senate, and then get three-quarters of the states to sign on. It's more likely that I'll join an NBA team than that a measure to basically increase taxes is going to get that level of legislative support. So, the unlikelihood of this happening is meant to be the ultimate argument-ender, as you put it