Is the repeal of Prohibition legal?

[rupol2000]

Is there a legislative mechanism for repealing the amendment?

Article 5 talks about making amendments, but does not say anything about repealing existing laws. If an amendment directly contradicts another amendment (de facto repeals it), then is it legal?

The 18 Amendment was repealed by the 21 Amendment.

This case is without precedent.

 

[harryo]

Must be. Does it say they can't be repealed?

 

[FA_Q2]

What do you think an amendment means?

The reality is in the meaning of the word itself, to amend something is to change it. Obviously, one way of changing it is to make it go away.

 

[Concerned American]

What do you think an amendment means?

The reality is in the meaning of the word itself, to amend something is to change it. Obviously, one way of changing it is to make it go away.

No sense discussing with this one. He doesn't understand the language or the constitution but he figures he can unilaterally change the meanings of both.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Is there a legislative mechanism for repealing the amendment?

Article 5 talks about making amendments, but does not say anything about repealing existing laws. If an amendment directly contradicts another amendment (de facto repeals it), then is it legal?

The 18 Amendment was repealed by the 21 Amendment.

This case is without precedent.

You must not drink. You must also have too much time on your hands to have come up with this one.

Having a cold one right now, Cheers!!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Is there a legislative mechanism for repealing the amendment?

Article 5 talks about making amendments, but does not say anything about repealing existing laws. If an amendment directly contradicts another amendment (de facto repeals it), then is it legal?

The 18 Amendment was repealed by the 21 Amendment.

This case is without precedent.

The Golden Calf Became a Sacred Cow

Political bullies want us to treat the Constitution like Fascist Fundamentalist Fanatics treat the Bible. The Founding Fodder, wags wearing wigs, were a bunch of wannabe nobles who established this elitist tyranny. Those pompous plutocratic plotters are treated like the Evangelists. This whole worship of a totally flawed government document is either a sacrilege or a superstition.

 

[Concerned American]

The Golden Calf Became a Sacred Cow

Political bullies want us to treat the Constitution like Fascist Fundamentalist Fanatics treat the Bible. The Founding Fodder, wags wearing wigs, were a bunch of wannabe nobles who established this elitist tyranny. Those pompous plutocratic plotters are treated like the Evangelists. This whole worship of a totally flawed government document is either a sacrilege or a superstition.

Here's an easy solution--Get the fuck out. Go to your utopia.

 

[rupol2000]

What do you think an amendment means?

The reality is in the meaning of the word itself, to amend something is to change it. Obviously, one way of changing it is to make it go away.

No. Semantically, these are just additions to the constitution.

 

[rupol2000]

Must be. Does it say they can't be repealed?

I don't know, that's why I asked. This needs to be clarified.

The fact that this is an unprecedented case speaks in favor of the fact that this is not allowed.

 

[rupol2000]

You must not drink.

I do not drink

 

[rupol2000]

The Golden Calf Became a Sacred Cow

Political bullies want us to treat the Constitution like Fascist Fundamentalist Fanatics treat the Bible. The Founding Fodder, wags wearing wigs, were a bunch of wannabe nobles who established this elitist tyranny. Those pompous plutocratic plotters are treated like the Evangelists. This whole worship of a totally flawed government document is either a sacrilege or a superstition.

I partly agree, but this is a utopia.

All the same, the American constitution has so far served on the side of the anti-federalists. It may be that traditional law is better than written law, but at the moment a Free Constitution is better than the arbitrariness of the left.

 

[FA_Q2]

No. Semantically, these are just additions to the constitution.

So you do not know what the word means.

Not really surprising considering the topic here.

I suggest you buy a dictionary.

 

[rupol2000]

So you do not know what the word means.

Not really surprising considering the topic here.

I suggest you buy a dictionary.

What article of the constitution does the 13th amendment repeal?

You don't understand the difference between grammar and semantics

 

[pegwinn]

Is there a legislative mechanism for repealing the amendment? No. Legislation cannot be used to change the US Constitution

Article 5 talks about making amendments, but does not say anything about repealing existing laws. If an amendment directly contradicts another amendment (de facto repeals it), then is it legal? Article 5 says nothing about repealing LAW because it is about changing the actual source of the law. However, if there were a law requiring you to drive off a cliff and the constituton were amended to explicitly forbid you from driving off the cliff all Thelma and Louise Laws would be instantly unconstitutional.

The 18 Amendment was repealed by the 21 Amendment. Thus answering your original question.

This case is without precedent. So? Lack of precedent doesn't mean wrong. When you were a virgin, having sex for you was unprecedented. First time for everything.

The Golden Calf Became a Sacred Cow

Political bullies want us to treat the Constitution like Fascist Fundamentalist Fanatics treat the Bible. The Founding Fodder, wags wearing wigs, were a bunch of wannabe nobles who established this elitist tyranny. Those pompous plutocratic plotters are treated like the Evangelists. This whole worship of a totally flawed government document is either a sacrilege or a superstition. If you don't like it you have lots of options; bitch and whine while doing nothing, bitch and whine and try to do something, leave and take your bitching and whining with you. I could go on but I think you get the point.

No. Semantically, these are just additions to the constitution. Not true. Look at what the word "Amend" meant in a period dictionary as the ratification votes took place.

Johnson's Dictionary Online

Supported by the University of Central Florida, NEH and Center for Humanities and Digital Research (CHDR) .

tinyurl.com

I don't know, that's why I asked. This needs to be clarified. I've done that. You're welcome

The fact that this is an unprecedented case speaks in favor of the fact that this is not allowed. I suppose that attitude would explain why some virgins die that way. Lucky for the species that precedent is merely shorthand for something that has happened before. Precedent is only binding if you allow it to be.

I do not drink You should. And, while drinking, read. Read a lot. Then reread it when you are not drinking so that the drunken insights become cemented in.

 

[rupol2000]

pegwinn You are illiterate. You confuse semantics with etymology and so on.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you do not know what the word means.

Not really surprising considering the topic here.

I suggest you buy a dictionary.

English isn't his first language . . . probably because, like most animals, he doesn't HAVE a first language.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, let me explain, and I'll try to use small words for the knuckle-dragging OP.

Prohibition itself was an Amendment to the Constitution. That means IT was a change to the existing law. If your half-assed, "I have a dick so I don't need to think" theory is that using Amendments to change the law is somehow illegitimate and "needs clarification" in the case of repealing Prohibition, then it was ALSO illegitimate and "needing clarification" in the case of Prohibition passing if the first place.

Logically - which I realize has nothing to do with the three-toothed idiot OP - if passing an Amendment to make alcohol illegal is valid, then passing another Amendment to make it legal again is equally legitimate. Obviously.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

The Golden Calf Became a Sacred Cow

Political bullies want us to treat the Constitution like Fascist Fundamentalist Fanatics treat the Bible. The Founding Fodder, wags wearing wigs, were a bunch of wannabe nobles who established this elitist tyranny. Those pompous plutocratic plotters are treated like the Evangelists. This whole worship of a totally flawed government document is either a sacrilege or a superstition.

So, where are you at in reordering a new charter for the government? Are you hoping someone smart comes along and explains how to fix it???
Or, are you waiting for the subsisting government to alert the people to the need for a new constitution, and then that will work itself out? Change Washington. Drain the Swamp???

 

[$ecular#eckler]

@pegwinn No. Legislation cannot be used to change the US Constitution

So, how do you, Constitutional scholars, explain how they limited the House of Representatives to whatever it is now?

What amendment is it?

 

[Concerned American]

So, how do you, Constitutional scholars, explain how they limited the House of Representatives to whatever it is now?

What amendment is it?

The story begins with the Constitution. The framers designed the House of Representatives
to represent the people rather than the states. Article I, Section II of the Constitution
says that each state shall have at least one U.S. Representative, while the total size of a
state’s delegation to the House depends on its population. The number of Representatives also
cannot be greater than one for every thirty thousand people. Over time, the country expanded
and the population of the nation grew. The House of Representatives mirrored this growth: the
membership of the House of Representatives increased as did the number of people represented
by each member.
Apportionment refers to the way the number of Representatives for each state is determined
every 10 years, as required by the Constitution, following a national census. The question of
apportionment has been a concern of Congress for much of our history. What size should the
House be in order to reasonably and fairly represent the people?
Beginning in 1790, after each census, Congress enacted a law that specified the changes in the actual
number of Representatives. The law also designated the increase in the ratio of Representatives to
the population. Because the House wanted a manageable number of members, Congress twice set
the size of the House at 435 voting members. The first law to do so was passed on August 8, 1911.
President William H. Taft signed legislation increasing the membership of the House from 391 to
433. (Two more members were added when New Mexico and Arizona became states.)

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.1 The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.