Paul Gowder argues that an “amendment” which didn't state the actual language amended, but only the result it sought to accomplish, would be valid. See Uncommon Priors » Lex posterior derogat priori and the elusive performative.. This is in response to an argument saying it would not.
My knee appears to be making a spasmodic movement suggesting that, in the absence of a firm rule to the contrary in the relevant jurisdiction, Gowder is correct.
How, after all, is this different from passage of a law that says (as they so often do), “notwithstanding any prior provision to the contrary…”? Does the difference turn on the use of the term “amendment”? And if so, why should one give the term such weight?