Bill of Rights

[A_Feeble_Mind]

I was having a discussion with someone when they challenged a "fact" that I have believed for a long time.

Is it possible for the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, to be amended? For a long time, I thought that these were untouchable, set in stone if you will (like another set of ten "laws"...) Now, I am not so sure.

I am not questioning the likelyhood, just the legality of it. I thought I remembered learning that the Bill of Rights was untouchable, but I cannot find anything to back that up.

[Luke T.]

I don't see why they couldn't be amended/repealed. Good luck trying, though.

[aerocontrols]

There is no portion of the Constitution that cannot be amended.

Any portion of the Bill of Rights can be repealed or amended.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Thanks. What about contradicting amendments? An example would be an anti-flag burning amendment that would infringe on the first amendment. What could happen in a case like that?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
Thanks. What about contradicting amendments? An example would be an anti-flag burning amendment that would infringe on the first amendment. What could happen in a case like that?

I think the second half of the contradiction would have to pass Supreme Court muster to be implemented. Two contradictory amendments cannot both be Constitutional, right?

But then again, defining a contradiction in Constitutionality is a lot like deciding if a flag-burning amendment impinges on free speech - it really depends on which 9 minds go to work on it.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
Thanks. What about contradicting amendments? An example would be an anti-flag burning amendment that would infringe on the first amendment. What could happen in a case like that?

When laws are believed to contradict, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on whether they contradict (The Supreme Court has ruled that flag-burning is free speech, but it could in the future, rule that it is not - then no contradiction) and which law to follow if they do contradict. I think generally the newest law would be followed, if the law is at the same level. (In this case, two bits of text from the Constitution)

See here (http://usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec1) for a section of the Constitution that was altered by amendment. The section that is in conflict with Amendment XI is simply considered void.

MattJ

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Jocko


I think the second half of the contradiction would have to pass Supreme Court muster to be implemented. Two contradictory amendments cannot both be Constitutional, right?

But then again, defining a contradiction in Constitutionality is a lot like deciding if a flag-burning amendment impinges on free speech - it really depends on which 9 minds go to work on it.

The way around this is to have the "Flag Burning" amendment simply say that "Flag burning is not speech" or something like that.

[Thumper]

aerocontrols is correct: in the event of a contradiction, the latest amendment gets the final word. However, don't expect a flag burning amendment to outright contradict Amendment I. It will be worded in a way that eliminates the contradiction.

[shuize]

I believe the specific controls the general.

So, you would have the right to free speech outside the specific exceptions.

But, ultimately, the Supreme Court makes the call.