Can the US government repeal or remove an article or amendment from the Constitution?

  • Can the United States Government vote to repeal current articles or amendments from the constitution? Or is the constitution forever?

    Sorry, -1. This is basic research. A definitive Wikipedia article is among first 5 Google search results, as are even better written articles from other sources

    Question is vague in its use of "US Government." Is it asking whether the Federal Govt can unilaterally change the constitution or whether there is a system in place to change it?

    @user4012 isn't stack exchange all about creating a consortium of information?

  • user1530

    user1530 Correct answer

    6 years ago

    That amendments exists shows that yes, you can amend the constitution. It's a living document. You can repeal an amendment by...amending the constitution by voting for a new amendment. Prohibition was enacted when the 18th Amendment was passed. It was later repealed with the 21st amendment.

    Articles could also be "repealed" via further amendments.

    Living Document has a very specific connotation when discussing the Constitution. It is the philosophy that the words written in the Constitution can be reinterpreted as society changes. Yes, a process exists to amend the Constitution, per Article V, but that is a stark difference from the Living Document concept.

    @drunkcynic yes and no. You are correct, but the generic term also applies. It's a living document (as it is updated) and there are proponents of the Living Constituion (aka Living Document) legal philosophy.

    The law paragraph of your cited link reflects the very distinction made above. "In United States constitutional law, the Living Constitution, also known as loose constructionism, permits the Constitution as a static document to have an interpretation that shifts over time as the cultural context changes. The opposing view, originalism, holds that the original intent or meaning of the writers of the Constitution should guide its interpretation." The concept of living document is distinct from the included methods for amending the Constitution; you're conflating the two.

    @Drunk Cynic hence my comment pointing out the differences between "living document" and "Living Constitution". Both terms apply to the U.S. constitution. I am not conflating anything. I am saying they are not mutually exclusive.

    @DrunkCynic Some words may mean a particular thing to you, but since we all get our own point of view we get to interpret them how they mean to us and you do not get the last say as to their meaning just because you wish it. It's almost like.. words may take a different meaning to _reasonable_ and rational people over time.. as if they were living and breathing themselves. If you were a strict constructionist, I would think you would try to determine what blip's actual original meaning and intent of his statement was rather than try to construe your own from his words.

    @JeffLambert Living Document means a specific, particular thing in academic and legislative debate surrounding the US Constitution. An individual interpretation or meaning is deficient in comparison; subjective views are substantially weaker than objective fact. If your premise is flawed, the conclusion is wrong.

    @DrunkCynic And yet a more generalized approach can still be used, and is appropriate where the intent here is meant. A living document is one that is updated and edited from time to time, as is the case with the Constitution. Just because a term _similar_ to "living document" (in your view "Living Constitution") may _also_ apply does not mean that _your_ interpretation of how the auther is using the term is the only correct one and certainly does not give you license to say all others who disagree with you are "wrong". Reference

    I apologize, but the recursive nature of this discussion is much too tantalizing for me to give up.

License under CC-BY-SA with attribution

Content dated before 7/24/2021 11:53 AM