4 ms·

The later amendment always wins. See, for example, the 18th amendment which was later repealed by the 21st amendment.

by tdhoot 9y ago

baddox 9y ago
I believe you that the later amendment would win, although that’s not necessarily evident from the example of the 21st amendment, since its text explicitly repeals the 18th amendment and thus doesn’t leave the ambiguity of two contradictory texts in place. A better example might be the 17th amendment, which changes the way that US senators are elected as described in Article I.
astura 9y ago
I wouldn't use that as an example, the wording of the 21st amendment is "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed," not "the manufactuer, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors should not be prohibited." It's my opinion that if there was a new amendment that would be in direct conflict with the other amendments without expressly repealing them the conflicting amendment it would be a constitutional crisis and it would cause political instability. It would be, at the very least, go to the Supreme Court.
- philwelch 9y ago
  That's empirically not the case--lots of boring procedural stuff in the Constitution was repealed by amendments without having to specifically use the word "repeal" in the amendment itself, e.g. the election of Senators, when Congressional and Presidential terms begin and end, the succession procedure for the Vice President to assume the Presidency, and so forth.
  - adrianratnapala 9y ago
    Yes, new laws overriding old ones is just common sense. Where I imagine you could get a crisis is if an amendment passes and then some (powerful) people then say "oh by the by -- did you notice that it implicitly limits X part of the bill of rights". Still this is not very likely. Not because people in the US don't want to wind back fundamental rights. But because they have easier ways of doing it than passing amendments -- even sly ones.
    - philwelch 9y ago
      Also, this is kind of the point of doing so by amendment. The old idea of amending the constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage was designed to forestall an Obergefell v. Hodges type decision. On the other side of the aisle, constitutional amendments around campaign finance or corporate personhood would supersede the interpretation of the First Amendment applied in Citizens United v. FEC.
jacurtis 9y ago
Yes, the later amendment would win. That is the reason for the ammendments in the first place, is to repeal, modify, or add to the constitution. So if it were to get ratified than it would trump (no pun intended) the earlier amendments or constitutional elements that it contradicts. Of course before you lose too much sleep over this thought, remember that we could then pass another amendment to repeal that amendment which repealed the other one. Life will find a way.

The later amendment always wins. See, for example, the 18th amendment which was later repealed by the 21st amendment.

by tdhoot 9y ago

The later amendment always wins. See, for example, the 18th amendment which was later repealed by the 21st amendment.

I believe you that the later amendment would win, although that’s not necessarily evident from the example of the 21st amendment, since its text explicitly repeals the 18th amendment and thus doesn’t leave the ambiguity of two contradictory texts in place. A better example might be the 17th amendment, which changes the way that US senators are elected as described in Article I.

astura 9y ago

I wouldn't use that as an example, the wording of the 21st amendment is "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed," not "the manufactuer, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors should not be prohibited." It's my opinion that if there was a new amendment that would be in direct conflict with the other amendments without expressly repealing them the conflicting amendment it would be a constitutional crisis and it would cause political instability. It would be, at the very least, go to the Supreme Court.

philwelch 9y ago
That's empirically not the case--lots of boring procedural stuff in the Constitution was repealed by amendments without having to specifically use the word "repeal" in the amendment itself, e.g. the election of Senators, when Congressional and Presidential terms begin and end, the succession procedure for the Vice President to assume the Presidency, and so forth.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  Yes, new laws overriding old ones is just common sense. Where I imagine you could get a crisis is if an amendment passes and then some (powerful) people then say "oh by the by -- did you notice that it implicitly limits X part of the bill of rights". Still this is not very likely. Not because people in the US don't want to wind back fundamental rights. But because they have easier ways of doing it than passing amendments -- even sly ones.
  - philwelch 9y ago
    Also, this is kind of the point of doing so by amendment. The old idea of amending the constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage was designed to forestall an Obergefell v. Hodges type decision. On the other side of the aisle, constitutional amendments around campaign finance or corporate personhood would supersede the interpretation of the First Amendment applied in Citizens United v. FEC.

jacurtis 9y ago

Yes, the later amendment would win. That is the reason for the ammendments in the first place, is to repeal, modify, or add to the constitution. So if it were to get ratified than it would trump (no pun intended) the earlier amendments or constitutional elements that it contradicts. Of course before you lose too much sleep over this thought, remember that we could then pass another amendment to repeal that amendment which repealed the other one. Life will find a way.