 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back |
Previous on Jeremy Bosch Memorial HOF |
Next on Jeremy Bosch Memorial HOF |
Owl
(172.167.137.198) on 3/4/2004 - 5:38 p.m. says: ( 6 views
)
|
"If I'm reading that amendment right,"
|
|
it gives the courts the right to overturn virtually all future Constitutional Amendments at whim.
Article V says that the Constitution can be amended unless that amendment denies a state its suffrage ("Provided...that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"). By adding this amendment to the end of that clause, after the "provided", this amendment then prohibits any further Amendments which create "rights or obligations, requirements or restrictions" that "impl[y] or infer[]" anything other than what that Amendment (or the C.) says explicitly. As such, the courts could nullify any future Amendment by simply finding that said Amendment implied something other than what it said, and thus did not meet the constitutional requirements for ratification.
IANAL, but based on the way I'm reading it, that amendment puts the onus of limiting the imputation of new rights on the ability of Congress to split hairs when passing amendments. The restrictions on judges also seem useless--judges don't from a legal standpoint create any changes to existing law, but rather rule that the law was always as they interpreted and was just misinterpreted before, so "any change to the express provisions of this Constitution" wouldn't apply. Furthermore, though judges could be "remanded" for impeachment, they couldn't be removed from office without some further law which classified a judge ruling to imply some right to be a high crime or misdemenor.
|
|
