The phrase "amendment could not be" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts discussing legal or formal changes that are not possible or permissible.
Example: "The proposed amendment could not be accepted due to procedural issues."
Alternatives: "change could not be" or "modification was not able to be".
In fact, even the relatively uncontroversial 23rd Amendment could not be ratified in most of the South.
Consequently, the limits of the due process under the 14th Amendment could not be appraised solely in terms of the "sanction of settled usage" under common law.
At 71 FR 54397, Sept. 14, 2006, § 180.209 was amended in (a)(1) table 1; however, because of the inaccurate amendatory language, the amendment could not be incorporated.
The appeals panel said the Supreme Court's ruling dealt with a federal gun ban but that the Second Amendment could not be used to overturn local ordinances.
On Feb. 11 lawmakers will vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but such an amendment could not be in place until 2006.
In several decisions in the 1970's and 80's, Mr. Wolfson said, the high court held that the First Amendment could not be used as a shield by groups trying to circumvent state civil rights laws.
(d) in the case of point (d) of paragraph 2, consider the amendments and either proceed as under point (b) of this paragraph or relaunch a second procedure under Article 9 setting out why some or all of the amendments could not be accepted by the competent committing authority.
(d) in the case of point (d) of Article 16(1), consider the amendments and either proceed as under point (b) of this paragraph or proceed as under point (c) of this paragraph setting out why some or all of the amendments could not be accepted by the competent committing authority.
At the Democratic convention in Boston in 2004, First Amendment challenges could not be addressed by judges, Mr. Silverstein said, because security measures were announced too late.
Ms. Capps, who debated sharply with Mr. Hunter on the House floor the day the military authorization bill passed, said the chairman was showing "the arrogance of power" by including an amendment that could not be voted on in its own right.
But in a major free-speech ruling in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the church and its members were protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment and could not be sued for monetary damages for inflicting pain on grieving families.
