[tisket]

What do you do - sleep with the IRC under your pillow?

That was the most convoluted answer, not to my posts, but to your own previous posts earlier in this thread. You sound like an IRS shill, for heaven's sake. Especially by throwing the epithet "liberal" at me. Only trolls seem to have a need to do that, as if by using the worst insult they can think of, they hope to derail logical discussion.

As I said earlier, a basic tenet of law is that there can be no contradiction. If this is something that is beyond your comprehension (or your pay grade) then any further explanation I can offer would be moot.

[Lurking Libertarian]

As I said earlier, a basic tenet of law is that there can be no contradiction. If this is something that is beyond your comprehension (or your pay grade) then any further explanation I can offer would be moot.

Under the original Constitution, whoever got the second most votes for President became the Vice President. The 12th Amendment changed this. Which one is in effect?

[Oceander]

What do you do - sleep with the IRC under your pillow?

No, I don't, but perhaps you should try it (that, the Constitution, and while we're at it, a primer on the basic canons of statutory construction).

Speaking of insults, BTW, "IRS shill" is not exactly a compliment around here.

I'd be more than happy to discuss statutory construction with you - it's something I do quite a bit, and it most certainly is neither beyond my comprehension, nor my pay grade (metaphorically speaking - solos/of-counsels don't have "pay grades" properly speaking). To get that conversation started, I'll offer up the canon of interpretation that appears to apply to this instance:

Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant
(Subsequent laws repeal those before enacted to the contrary, aka "Last in Time")

When two statutes conflict, the one enacted last prevails.

See, e.g., Yule, Kim, Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends, CRS Report for Congress 97-589, at page 26 (Updated August 31, 2008, Order Code 97-589).

Applying that canon of construction to the situation at hand, and assuming arguendo that the 13th Amendment made no changes, explicit or penumbral, to the amending provisions of Article V, we arrive at the not unreasonable conclusion that, to the extent there is any conflict between the 13th Amendment and the 16th Amendment, the 16th Amendment, being the later in time, prevails over the 13th Amendment to the extent of any such conflict.

Your turn.