Amending The Pre-Bill Of Rights Portion Of The Constitution

[Northern_Piper]

@Peter_Morris

But it doesn’t change what was said before, it only adds to it.

No, it restricts Congress’s power. That is a change to that portion of the Constitution.

Before the 27th came into force, Congress could vote themselves pay raises that came into force immediately. Now they can’t.

[Peter_Morris]

Sigh.

The OP says:
When was the last time the Constitution was amended with the change focusing specifically on a part of the text that appears before the Bill of Rights and later amendments?

Show me the specific part of the text of the original constitution pre Bill of Rights that is addressed and changed by the 27th.

[Chronos]

Lord Feldon already did, in post 18.

[Colibri]

@Peter_Morris

But it doesn’t change what was said before, it only adds to it.

It restricts it, rather than adds to it. In any case, it’s a change.

[Colibri]

@Hari_Seldon

Most of the amendments (including the first ten) are additions to, not changes to the constitution. Even the 22nd just adds to the eligibility requirements. I think the 12th may be the right answer; it does change the method of how the electoral college works.

Why aren’t additions changes?

[UDS]

@md2000

Which is good. I had the opportunity to read a Canadian bill once, and it was basically "In P1 s3 (a) strike “shall not” and replace “shall only except when …” and that sort of crap for pages and pages. Basically rewriting a previous law by specifying inserts and deletes one phrase at a time. It was unreadable. You’d need a copy of the original and a pen to figure out the effect of the changes. Simply adding clauses as full sentences or paragraphs that override previous clauses makes so much more sense.

This makes the intent of the amending instrument easier to discern, but it makes the principal text, the text you are amending, more difficult to comprehend. You’re leaving in place chunks of text that are in fact overridden by later insertions which appear elsewhere in the amended text; it’s easy to see how people could be mislead by that.

[AK84]

That’s why pretty much every other law everywhere else is amended that way.

[Northern_Piper]

Right. And then the office of the legislative counsel, or the Ministry of Justice, or equivalent agency issues a consolidation, making all the additions and deletions to the text of the main Act, and you have a perfectly workable statute. You never have to refer back to the amending act.

[pdhenry]

@HeyHomie

The 22nd, enacted (is that the right word?) on February 27, 1951, limits the amount of time the POTUS can serve. That amends one of the Articles (not sure which, but you get my point).

Point of order. The 22A limits the number of times that a person can be elected to the office of President. Joe Biden’s future Veep Barack Obama thanks you for your attention to this matter

Edit: The article you’re thinking of (which escapes me also and will until the end of the edit window) addresses eligibility to serve as President.

Edit again: Article two.