Replies

No, he's not. Are you saying that the 13th Amendment, without so much as a by-your-leave, impliedly amended Article V of the Constitution, which reads, in relevant part, as follows:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, ... which ... 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, ..."

The 13th Amendment, in its entirety, reads as follows:

"Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Now, please show me where that language operates to modify, alter, repeal, or limit the language of Article V of the Constitution.

Until you do, since such modification, alteration, repeal, or limitation is not evident from the face of the language of the 13th Amendment itself, we must continue to operate on the basis that Article V of the Constitution says what it means and means what it says - that is, we must follow the plain meaning of the words as written.

In particular, that means that the Congress - as it did - was within its rights and powers to propose the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, and that the legislatures of 3/4s of the states - as they did - were within their rights and powers to ratify - that is to give their consent to the operative legal language proposed by Congress alone - the 16th Amendment, after which it became "valid to all intents and purposes, as part of [the] Constitution ...."

So, unless you can show how the 13th Amendment necessarily modified, altered, repealed, or limited the plain meaning of the language of Article V of the Constitution, Dr. Paul's argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.