Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (229163)	4/13/2005 4:13:27 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578646

Come on, you can't just say "its so". I can't find any Constitutional restrictions on the content of Amendments. Further, there is nothing in the Constitution which forces internal consistency for that matter. The only safety checks in the Amendment process are the hoops one most go through, i.e. Congress + States, and the size of majorities required. I am unclear why this is so hard to grasp. An amendment that violates a provision of the Constitution is a contradiction in terms. How can you amend a document when that amendment violates one of the provisions of the document its supposed to be a part of? The only way to make it work is to say that the original provision is to be superseded by the amendment. However, even that would be questionable since most constitutional amendments are intended to enhance existing provisions, not supersede them. Did you see the links on the subject that I provided Tim? If we mustered the required majorities, then we could pass any awful amendments desired (pick your worst nightmare) and once enshrined in the Constitution, only another amendment to rid it, will follow the law. No. There is another possibility .......the courts find the "awful" amendment unconstitutional. Heck, a Constitutional Convention could entirely replace the existing Constitution. If that should happen, this conversation would be pretty much moot. We will no longer being living in the same country. ted