is there a process to handle inconsistent constitution/amendents?

[distortionmarshall]

for example, suppose the 1st amendment contradicted the 23rd (i have no idea which one that is). What happens then?

[Badger1]

1. Not sure

if there is process to address this, but a constational amendment to ban gay marriage, would seem to be contrary to the 4th amendment

[eyesroll]

2. I believe new amendments cancel out old

Since new amendments, by definition, change that which came before them.
Technically, an amendment establishing Christianity as the official U.S. religion could be passed, and it would cancel out the establishment clause in the 1st. (To extrapolate this -- yes, a gay-marriage amendment would cancel out parts of other amendments.)

[Walt Starr]

3. all new amendments, by definition, supercede anything else in the

Constitution.

Basically, you can repeal the first amendment by wording a subsequent amendment correctly.

But the amendment process as defined by the constitution is extermely difficult, towhit:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Two Thirds of both houses and three fourths of the state legislatures is an extremely high hurdle which can only be changed by a constitutional amendment.

[sallyseven]

6. That is the point

You know that bush can say I tried but the congress wouldn't vote my way. It would take years for this to get through Congress, the state legislatures, etc. He can make a whole new career out of lying to the people. This is a fraud. He is losing and he is throwing a red herring in the mix. I have never hated him more than I did today and I am not gay. Imagine how they must feel. I cannot imagine letting something as important as this be voted on by the people. We would still have segregation if it were left up to the people of the US.

[Walt Starr]

7. That's not what this is about at all

This is Bush shoring up the radical Christian base in February and MArch and nothing more. It will go down in flames but Bush gets to say, "see, I tried."

His old man lost the radical Christian base who stayed home in droves during the '92 election. Bush wants no repeat of that.

Add to this that the mushy middle will have completely forgotten this by November and this thing is a win-win proposition for Bush. He cannot lose on this one unless the amendment actually passes the Senate.

[Cleita]

4. Gore Vidal, the author and political commentator

has suggested that we need a new constitutional congress to draft an updated constitution. I agree something needs to be done and an updated constitution for our modern world would seem like an intelligent proposition. My trouble with his suggestion is would it be a fair representation of Americans or will the white congress prevail?

[dflprincess]

8. NO NO NO

Given the current state of affairs in this country - do you really want the whole Constitution rewritten? I shudder to think what we'd be stuck with.

[Cleita]

11. I was paraphrasing the person who said this, Gore Vidal.

I agree with you that today's totalitarian political climate isn't a good one.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Amen!

There is an ongoing call for a Convention, and at times it looked like it might happen.

But, yes, I am absolutely terrified of what a new Constitution might look like.

The one we have seems to work just fine.

[teach1st]

9. Given our nation's deep divisions currently

A constitutional convention right now might not be a good idea. I can easily imagine such a convention leading to serious civil unrest.

[arewethereyet]

5. ammendments tend to clarify ambiguity elsewhere

therefore they tend to be rather narrowly drawn items. Like prohibition as an example.

[sallyseven]

10. I wouldn't let anyone touch the constitution

in this day and age. Too risky