I believe there is a difference between an amendment that contradicts another amendment and an amendment that contradicts a section of the Constitution itself.
Amendments are *generally* for covering issues that are not explicitly covered in the Constitution. If two amendments contradict each other, then it's potentially up for grabs.
Contradicting the main body of the Constitution is, I believe, a different issue. I'm pretty sure that if the amendment does not explicitly state that it is altering the Constitution, and which sections it is altering, and to what effect it is altering them, then the Constitution wins by default.
Again, IANAL. Just going on what I've heard here and there. |
