An Amendment Contrary to the Constitution, Constitutional?

[Tritium]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Wa

How could an amendment contrary to the Constitution be Constitutional?

Isn't that like saying the AntiChrist is Christian?

constituo, constituere, constitui, constitutus V (3rd) [XXXAO]
set up/in position, erect; place/dispose/locate; (call a) halt; plant (trees);
decide/resolve; decree/ordain; appoint, post/station (troops); settle (colony);
establish/create/institute; draw up, arrange/set in order; make up, form; fix;

constitutus, constituta, constitutum ADJ [XXXCO]
constituted/disposed, endowed with a nature; ordered/arranged/appointed; being;

I'm trying to understand the logic behind a document that fixes the establishment of the United States can become unfixed.

The constitution was ratified by the people... whom the delegated powers are derived. Logic seems to imply that a document ratified by the people is superior to any subsequent document ratified by a lesser authority. The State legislatures cannot pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.

Consent is an important principle of the constitution, otherwise it would be contrary to "Liberty".What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[FlyingRon]

I can't even begin to follow your rambling sentence fragments, but an amendment to the Constitution, properly ratified, is CONSTITUTIONAL by definition. All amendment s are by their nature somewhat "contrary" to the existing document or else they wouldn't be necessary to pass them as amendments.

The dictionary doesn't define the US Constitution. It defines itself. There's a difference between constitution with and without the capital C.

The 12th and 25th amendment for example were specifically contrary to the passages in Article II. The 17th and 26th amendments are contrary to Article I. The 21st amendment is contrary to the 18th, etc...

[thedoctorisin]

An amendment contrary to a previous provision of the Constitution supersedes that prior provision. Example: The 18th amendment prohibiting alcohol, and the 21st amendment repealing the 18th amendment.

An amendment contrary to the rules for amending the Constitution is invalid, because the Constitution can only be amended as allowed by the Constitution. Example: If the 13th amendment prohibiting slavery had been enacted prior to 1808, it would have been invalid for being in violation of Article V of the Constitution.

[FlyingRon]

Of course, an amendment has no meaning if it isn't ratified subject to Article V (or as Article V was amended if it were to be).

When we talk about the First and Second Amendments we mean them in the order ratified (freedom of speech, press, religion and right to keep and bear arms) rather than the second one proposed (which eventually, after 202 years became the 27th amendment, on Congressional pay). The original first amendment proposed a tweaking the forumla for calculating the number of representitves. A similar forumula tweak 22 years later also didn't pass. It also restricted people who have posts in foreign governments from holding posts in the US one. An early antislavery amendment also failed to be ratified.

More recently amendments regarding Child Labor, Equal Rights, and DC congressional representation have failed.

[tranquility]

But, if we amend the amendment before the amendment is amended we must use the pre-amendment amendment procedure. Right?

[Tritium]

Article VI., 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

When the Bill of Rights were added by amendments, they were merely declarations of what was already truth. But from my understanding, the amendments had to be necessary and proper in order to qualify as Constitutional. In the case of the Bill of Rights, it was necessary to secure ratification of a couple states.

When the United States existed under its previous constitution, "The Articles of Confederation", Amendments were necessary in order to 'form a more perfect union", Which due to the fact these amendments were to grant powers expressly denied, an entirely new Constitution was required.

It seems to me the same would continue to be true, even in our current Constitution. And all acts of Congress that are to become law would need to be made pursuant to the Constitution of the United States.

If an amendment was proposed and ratifed that says "Habeas Corpus can be infringed whenever convenient." would it be Constitutional?

How can the creation alter what its creator established? Doesn't that violate the Science of Law?

[Tritium]

Originally Posted by thedoctorisin

An amendment contrary to a previous provision of the Constitution supersedes that prior provision. Example: The 18th amendment prohibiting alcohol, and the 21st amendment repealing the 18th amendment.

An amendment contrary to the rules for amending the Constitution is invalid, because the Constitution can only be amended as allowed by the Constitution. Example: If the 13th amendment prohibiting slavery had been enacted prior to 1808, it would have been invalid for being in violation of Article V of the Constitution.

Unless they passed an amendment removing the 1808 restriction first?

[Some Random Guy]

When the Bill of Rights were added by amendments, they were merely declarations of what was already truth.

Not exactly. When the constitution was created, the framers came to an agreement that the main body of the document which outlined the structure of the government, was insufficient because it did not exlplicitly outline freedoms and rights that that the original constitution was silent on.

But from my understanding, the amendments had to be necessary and proper in order to qualify as Constitutional.

No. They merely had to be agreed upon.

In the case of the Bill of Rights, it was necessary to secure ratification of a couple states.

All amendments to the constitution require ratification in order to be valid.

...And all acts of Congress that are to become law would need to be made pursuant to the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, all LAWS created by congress should be constitutional or else judges may overturn them later. However, LAWS are different than constitutional amendments.

If an amendment was proposed and ratifed that says "Habeas Corpus can be infringed whenever convenient." would it be Constitutional?

Absolutely. By definition. Once ratified, an amendment is part of the constitution. Therefore it is always constitutional because it is the constitution.

Your protection against radical amendments such as these that might be quickly thrown together in light of an event like 9/11 is the convoluted and laborious process for creating and ratifying amendments. This process usually results in a 10+ year span before any proposed amentment is ratified.

However, in the case that an amendment is put in place that the country truly does not agree with, then it may be overturned by a subsequent amendment. An exampe of that is the 18th and 21st amendments mentioned by thedoctorisin.

How can the creation alter what its creator established? Doesn't that violate the Science of Law?

Now this is getting to be gibberish. We are talking about lawmakers and the public altering what other lawmakers and the public created earlier.

[cbg]

Oh, now this is fascinating.

My husband teaches political science and American government on the college level - I would love to see what he can do with this post.

[HomeGuru]

Yes, cbg, I'll be waiting.

[thedoctorisin]

Originally Posted by Tritium

Unless they passed an amendment removing the 1808 restriction first?

That's an interesting question. My guess is that it would have been possible, prior to 1808, to first pass an amendment removing the 1808 amendment restriction, and then under the modified amendment rules pass a second amendment abolishing slavery.

[Tritium]

Originally Posted by Some Random Guy

Not exactly. When the constitution was created, the framers came to an agreement that the main body of the document which outlined the structure of the government, was insufficient because it did not exlplicitly outline freedoms and rights that that the original constitution was silent on.

I would disagree with this statement. Madison was originally opposed to a Bill of Rights. His said that it could be dangerous to make exceptions to a power not granted in the constitution. When he made the proposals requested at the state conventions, he changed his position because it's just added security.
The Constitution established the government. The people already existed prior it's establishment, and it's purpose is to protect our liberties.

Originally Posted by Some Random Guy

Yes, all LAWS created by congress should be constitutional or else judges may overturn them later. However, LAWS are different than constitutional amendments.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, but amendments do not have the effect of law?

Originally Posted by Some Random Guy

Absolutely. By definition. Once ratified, an amendment is part of the constitution. Therefore it is always constitutional because it is the constitution.

"shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution , when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof"

as part of "This Constitution" clearly establishes it is an addition, and not an alteration of the original document.

Originally Posted by Some Random Guy

However, in the case that an amendment is put in place that the country truly does not agree with, then it may be overturned by a subsequent amendment. An exampe of that is the 18th and 21st amendments mentioned by thedoctorisin.

Now this is getting to be gibberish. We are talking about lawmakers and the public altering what other lawmakers and the public created earlier.

Well, because the 18th amendment was proposed by a government established to secure liberty, that alone would make it Unconstitutional. The powers of government can only be delegated by the people, which was why the people ratified our Constitution, and not the Articles of Confederation.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by tranquility

But, if we amend the amendment before the amendment is amended we must use the pre-amendment amendment procedure. Right?

No.

If we amend the amended amendment, then amend the amendment before the amendment is amended we must use the pre-amendment amendment procedure.

[Some Random Guy]

Tritium, you apparently disagree with me because I summarized. I said that the founders "came to an agreement" on how the constitution and the first ten amendments would be written. I never said they didn't argue about it for years beforehand. Like every contentious issue, compromise was involved.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, but amendments do not have the effect of law?

No. Amendments to the constitution, once ratified, are the "Supreme law of the land" as you say and are therefore superior to the ordinary laws passed by congress.

as part of "This Constitution" clearly establishes it is an addition, and not an alteration of the original document.

I suggest you reread these statements. You can alter by adding.

Well, because the 18th amendment was proposed by a government established to secure liberty, that alone would make it Unconstitutional.

Once again, this makes no sense. The identity of the group proposing an amendment has nothing to do with its constitutionality. The purpose of the government has nothing to do with the amendment. The amendment may or not be constitutional before it is ratified (only constitutional if redundant). But it is by definition constitutional after it is ratified.

[tranquility]

Why do I think this is going to resolve to taxes are illegal or that Obama isn't president?

If we amend the amended amendment, then amend the amendment before the amendment is amended we must use the pre-amendment amendment procedure.

My mistake.