Does the repeal of an ammendment have any direct legal consequence on the subject of that ammendment? I’m thinking of the eighteenth. Many communities now have laws restricting or prohibiting the sale or use of alcholic beverages. Could a community repeal all laws concerning alchohol? Has the establishment/repeal of the 18th been considered in making law? Or is it as though the ammendment never existed?
Also, can an ammendment be ammended? I’m thinking the second. 
Peace,
mangeorge
An amendment can’t be amended in that passing a new amendment won’t cause us to go back and white out the words on the original parchment, but (as you know from the example of the 18th) an amendment or other section of the Constitution can be made inoperable by passing another amendment. No part of the 18th Amendment remains operational because of the plain text of section 1 of the 21st. “The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”
What gives a community, state, or whatever, the power to regulate alcoholic beverages is Section 2 of the 21st Amendment. (Plus, of course the residual power of the 10th Amendment, following on the repeal of the 18th by Section 1.)
In other words, it’s no longer a Federal infraction to produce, possess, or consume alcoholic beverages – but that does not restrict a state from making it illegal – or, more commonly, for a state to go “local option” and have the regulation decided on a community-by-community basis.
And, of course, what a community does is solely dependent on the state rules on what can be handled by “home rule” legislation. For example, one state may enable its communities to set speed limits, while another may empower the State Highway Dept. to set those limits by regulation, and all the community can do is petition the Dept. to set the speed limit at the speed they want as legal maximum.
While the 18th Amendment has been the only one formally repealed, quite a lot of the original Constitution and arguably small elements of the 12th Amendment have been superseded by later amendments.
Remember that the Constitution related to the Federal Government with the restrictions on State and Local governments clearly laid out in Article I and the XIVth Amendment. In fact, the Xth Amendment expressly make it clear that powers not given to the Federal government under the Constitution are reserved by the States or People.
So what did the repeal of the XVIIIth Amendment do? It changed regulation of the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol from federal jurisdiction (Volstead Act) to state control.
It amazes me that such a simple word as “constition” with an extremely popular prefix and suffix has no meaning.
I didn’t even notice that, even when previewed.
A truly kind moderator would fix it. 
Readdressing the rest of the OP: Any part of the Constitution can be amended. There are two exceptions, one effectively outdated, which would require first amending the portion of the Constitution protecting them to allow them to be amended. But the point is, any amendment is itself part of the Constitution and can itself be amended, including repealed, by another amendment properly adopted and ratified.
Say that there is a move to remove the Constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury in a civil trial (lawsuit) in Federal court. (Note that this doesn’t require you to have a jury trial if you choose not to; rather, it protects your right to insist on one if you wish to.) Repeal of the Seventh Amendment would accomplish this, and a new 28th Amendment that reads much like the 21st could be introduced into Congress, passed by both houses, and sent to the state legislatures for ratification.
It’s hardly something that you see protestors staging marches about, but that’s exactly how it likely would be handled.
The 20th Amendment modified the 12th Amendment, which, in turn, had amended Article 2, Section 1
This part of my question was aimed at the second, because there has been a lot of debate about the intended meaning of the wording, which for me is somewhat awkward. Thanks to your answer I can see why the pro-gun folks are so reluctant to touch it. Any change for clarification would require a repeal, and they sure don’t want to go there.
BTW; I’m a gun owner myself, and will not enter into any bebate here. I just think the 2nd is a good example.
So a state could, in theory, repeal all liquor laws on their books and allow seven year-olds to buy booze. Of course this would lead to yet another ammendment.
From a constitutional perspective, certainly. However, under terms of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, passed in 1984, such a state would forfeit a percentage of its federal highway aid, which no state wishes to do.
Not even Texas? :dubious:
Thanks, all, for the interesting replies. 
mangeorge
It never was a federal infraction to possess or consume alcoholic beverages in a private residence, per the Volstead Act:
I think you’re channeling Peter Suber, on his research into the ability of one rule to modify another. Not that channeling him is a bad thing, mind you.
The procedural problem I find with American Constitutional amendments is that they all supplement the text, and don’t specifically modify it – with the exception of Amend. 21 Sect. 1. On the other hand, the practice of an amendment using the terms “strike,” “insert,” and “append” (or reasonable synonyms) arose (as I recall) in the mid-19th century, particularly through Gen. Henry Robert’s work in codifying parliamentary procedure.