Quote:
Quote by: Osborn F Enready  For example: A hypothetical.....
If the Constitution stated "you own your own body, and are responsible for it as an individual in all ways: economic, socially and regarding all actions, consumption and situations"....
and then in the first amendment they passed, the amendment stated: "No person shall consume corn, as the government deems corn to be a hazard to human life" with no basis for making such an argument, is this a blatant violation, regardless of how it is passed? |
No. If the two sections of the hypothetical constitution are given equal weight, as all of the sections of our Constitution are, then the effect of the law is that persons have control over their own consumption with the exception that they may not consume corn. There are many situations in which our Constitution does this - many of the Amendments create an "asterisk" on earlier provisions or remove them outright.
That is the definition of AMENDMENT - it changes the sum total of what the Constitution says.
Quote:
|
It DIRECTLY contradicts the law of the land, and does not address the issue of how it does in the new amendment.
|
No, it IS the law of the land once it becomes an amendment.
The amendment does not need to address the issue of how it contradicts the law of the land. Look at the 17th Amendment. It never says that it contradicts Article 1, section 3. A person only reading Article 1, Section 3 would assume that section is still valid. A person reading only Amendment 17 would never know that Amendment directly contradicts an earlier clause, and even though it does, it is the law of the land.