The Legality of Radical Amendments

Members allowed to view this conversation


10 months ago (edited by Walter 10 months ago)

A constitutional amendment that directly contradicts the underlying principles of the constitution which it amends may be considered an unconstitutional amendment because, as opposed to expanding upon the underlying document that is the Constitution, it will be revised to become legislatively discordant and a legislative body should otherwise adopt a new constitution altogether. In the present condition of the United States Constitution, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments are unconstitutional on substantive grounds, as they are directly incompatible with the underlying Constitution and in some parts contradict its implementations.

The argument put forth by George Wright against radical amendments with respect to a hypothetical rescinding of the Equal Protection Clause in the form of an amendment, as this would be “extremely internally inconsistent and incoherent [… and] unconstitutional,” requires for the Fourteenth Amendment itself to be considered in its consistency with the Constitutional subject upon which it is based, as previously argued, and the Constitutional value of equality that was conceptualized and practiced among European peoples.

This is how liberals get away with everything.

Hey! You need to log in or create an account to do anything on this forum.

1,978 posts - 484 conversations - 0 members online

  • Display avatars