The phrase "a valid amendment" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when discussing changes or modifications that are legally or formally acceptable, often in the context of laws, regulations, or documents.
Example: "The committee reviewed the proposed changes and agreed that a valid amendment was necessary to address the concerns raised by the stakeholders."
Alternatives: "an acceptable modification" or "a legitimate revision".
For this reason, a separate category as established in the SM is indeed a valid amendment to the systems.
After Kuralt's death, his family and Shannon spent six years in court fighting over whether this note was a valid amendment to the 1994 will that a lawyer had prepared, or simply a promise to revise the document a promise that Kuralt never carried out.
Some argued that the proposed change so violated the spirit of the Constitution that it would not be a valid "amendment" but would instead constitute "revolution".
The California Supreme Court ruled today that Proposition 8, limiting marriage in California to "opposite-sex couples," is a valid amendment to the California State Constitution.
The state high court later ruled that the initiative was a valid state constitutional amendment but upheld the validity of an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that occurred before the election.
Beyond that, Burbank said he saw no way the teams could appeal further, because he found that the agreements made between the union and the players were valid amendments to the collective bargaining agreement and that they were binding on players and owners.
Jones, which held that the placement of a hidden device on a suspect's car without a valid warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
More importantly though, Carl Zimmer's posts (Zimmer 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2009e, 2009f) were investigative pieces that catalyzed both the corrections that would allow Darwinius to be established as a valid name as well as the amendment about the competing interests of the paper.
The question for the justices was whether the roadblock was a valid investigatory tool or, under the Fourth Amendment, an unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional seizure.
The decision will hinge on whether the court believes the law to be a valid exercise of Congress's authority to enforce the 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantee.
To decide the state liability question, the court has to decide whether the law is a valid exercise of Congress's authority to enforce the 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantee.
