This was brought up by my musings on this reply to one of my posts.
The claim was, in effect, that a proposed Constitutional amendment ought not be passed because, among other reasons, it violated the wording of the First Amendment (and, according to other posters, a few other parts of the Constitution as well).
My questions are:
- Is there anything in the Constitution which prevents the passage of an amendment which contradicts the text of other sections of the Constitution?
- If not, may the fact that a proposed amendment violates another section of the Constitution be used in and of itself to invalidate the proposal? (Whether the amendment should be invalidated on this basis is another question, which I do not ask here - I am only asking whether the Constitution and constitutional law would allow such a thing.)
- Supposing that two inconsistent amendments, overlapping in the time of their effect, were passed. How ought one to make sense of both? (This is an unanswerable question if you believe that there is a constitutional basis for denying such pairs of amendments.)
Just wondering about people's opinions. |
