# Fact-based legal Q: Precedent for exclusionary amendments in the U.S. Constitution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 24, 2004, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-based-legal-q-precedent-for-exclusionary-amendments-in-the-u-s-constitution/230904 "2004-02-24T15:49:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2004, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-based-legal-q-precedent-for-exclusionary-amendments-in-the-u-s-constitution/230904/21 "2004-02-27T00:51:18Z")
[QUOTE=LemonThrower] Constantine - past SCt decisions have had an effect equivalent to an amendment to the Constituion, and some of these were exclusionary, even if these Sct decisions were not labeled “amendments”. So to be thorough, one should address these. [QUOTE] No, as said before equating a Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution with the effects of an actual amendment to the Constitution is meaningless. You’re not being “thorough”: you’re being ideological. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2004, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-based-legal-q-precedent-for-exclusionary-amendments-in-the-u-s-constitution/230904/22 "2004-02-27T03:26:44Z")
> [@dqa](#): > > What would be the status of such an amendment when 3/4 of states had ratified it? Would it technically be part of the constitution, but not in effect per its own terms? Or would it not be part of the constitution, because the amendment’s own wording trumps the 3/4 rule in Article V? I would say that the amendment would not become part of the Constitution until ratified by every single state. I am, however, unfamiliar with the reasoning behind **Cliffy** ’s contention that this part of the amendment clause is ineffective. I’ve read a few of his posts and he seems well versed in the appropriate lore so I am reluctant to dismiss his position out of hand. ## This does bring up an interesting question about the ability of Congress to place limits upon the ratification of amendments. What happens if they pass an ordinary amendment that stated it would only become part of the Constitution when ratified by 45 states? Can the Congress place such a limit? If not then what does that say about the ERA? Is it truly dead just because the congressional time limit ( and the extension ) has passed or can it still be ratifed if approved by a few more states? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2004, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-based-legal-q-precedent-for-exclusionary-amendments-in-the-u-s-constitution/230904/23 "2004-02-27T03:30:42Z")
> [@sibyl](#): > > So could an amendment could be passed that prohibited further amendments to the constitution? > > Or how about an amendment to the constitution that prohibited something (for example, abortion), and declared itself the last amendment to the United States constitution, saying the amendment process is no longer valid. Sure, an amendment could be passed repealing Article V and stating that no further amendments shall be added. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2004, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-based-legal-q-precedent-for-exclusionary-amendments-in-the-u-s-constitution/230904/24 "2004-02-27T04:00:17Z")
> [@](#): > > What happens if they pass an ordinary amendment that stated it would only become part of the Constitution when ratified by 45 states? Can the Congress place such a limit? Sure. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2004, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-based-legal-q-precedent-for-exclusionary-amendments-in-the-u-s-constitution/230904/25 "2004-02-27T04:30:13Z")
Because that contradicts the amendment article of the Constitution which states ( in part ) that amendments _“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…”_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-based-legal-q-precedent-for-exclusionary-amendments-in-the-u-s-constitution/230904.md?page=1)