20

If one amendment doesn’t explicitly repeal another one, does it still take precedence over it the way a new law can indirectly override older laws?

33

Yes... but...

But muggles like you and I don't get to decide if a conflict exists, that is a matter for the Court in their role in interpreting the constitution. And the Constitution should be read as a complete document, and not a series of separate and independent clauses. There's a general philosophy in interpreting regulations: more specific rules take precedence over general rules. This is what allows the later amendments to carve out exceptions to the fairly general provisions in the Bill of Rights

Nevertheless, interclause conflict exists. For example, the first amendment restrains powers to pass laws that are implicit in Article I. The first amendment doesn't explicitly repeal any part of Article I, but is an obvious and express effort to limit the powers of Congress.

In other cases, the court has ruled that Congress can't use the powers in one clause to avoid the limitations in another clause. For example, the Commerce clause gives Congress wide powers to regulate trade between the states. But Congress can't use the Commerce clause to create a copyright law that grants copyright in perpetuity as that would conflict with the Copyright clause.

Similarly, the fourteenth amendment covers similar legal ground to the fourth (and perhaps the fifth) The fourth protects you from unreasonable searches, the fourteenth requires due process. Nevertheless, the government can't deny you rights granted under the fourth because they are not explicit in the fourteenth.

Another example: the 24th amendment allows for Congress to prohibit poll taxes. But suppose that Congress felt that the only way to prohibit poll-taxes, it was necessary and proper to also prohibit the promotion of poll-taxes. Could it pass such legislation? Amendment 1 says no. And there is no clear and obvious intent in the 24th that it should overrule the 1st.

However, in a clear case in which a later amendment makes a clear and obvious intent to modify an existing provision, the later amendment takes priority. As a simple example of this, many of the amendments 11-27 include an explicit grant of powers to Congress to legislate. These conflict with Amendment 10 (which says that Congress doesn't have further powers) None of the later amendments repeal 10, but the clear and obvious intent is to grant powers, and so the conflict is generally decided in favour of the later or more specific amendment.

11
  • 11
    I think there's a general philosophy in interpreting regulations: more specific rules take precedence over general rules. This is what allows the later amendments to carve out exceptions to the fairly general provisions in the Bill of Rights. – Barmar Apr 4 at 21:13
  • 1
    //But muggles like you and I don't get to decide if a conflict exists, that is a matter for the Supreme Court in its role in interpreting the constitution.// If the Supreme Court is doing its job, its rulings will be consistent with the Supreme Law of the Land, but that doesn't mean the Supreme Law of the Land becomes whatever the Supreme Court says it is. Lower courts that want to avoid being overruled will seek to rule in a fashion consistent with Supreme Court precedent, but the Supreme Court's has no actual authority over anyone other than actual parties to the cases before it. – supercat Apr 5 at 18:11
  • 2
    @supercat what is your point? Sure the SCOTUS can't amend the constitution. But they certainly can decide how the kind of conficts that I've mentioned in my answer should be resolved. And it does have authority, by common law precedent. In common law jurisdictions, courts must examine precedent before reaching a legal decision. Judges can and do make law.# – James K Apr 5 at 18:37
  • 1
    @JamesK: Precedent must be examined when trying to resolve situations which are not adequately addressed by any other existing law, but its legitimate authority is limited to such cases. If the Supreme Court issues a ruling which would be grossly and patently inconsistent with any remotely plausible reading of the Constitution and other laws, those sworn by oath to uphold the Constitution would be duty-bound to recognize such a ruling as illegitimate. – supercat Apr 5 at 18:43
  • 1
    Okay, but it has never happened and is rather irrelevant here, which is concerned with the issue of "conflicts" which are not adequately addressed in the constitution (by the lack of an explicit repeal) – James K Apr 5 at 18:50
4

Laws are generally written to minimise conflicting interpretations of how they are to be understood in relation with each other. This is just good legal practise. Nevertheless, conflicts in interpretation can arise. Whilst legislative bodies write and pass legislation, that is laws, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret law - that is the courts. Higher courts over-rule lower courts with the Supreme Court being the highest court of the land (although with a proviso, as we saw in the impeachment of President Trump, it's Congress itself that is a court in this exceptional case).

The constitution of the United States is nothing other than a legal document. Hence it is subject to the above.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .