The phrase "amendment requirement" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts discussing legal, constitutional, or procedural changes that necessitate a formal amendment.
Example: "The proposed changes to the policy will trigger an amendment requirement that must be addressed before implementation."
Alternatives: "modification necessity" or "revision obligation".
Most of my scholarship in that area focused on the Fifth Amendment requirement that takings must be for a "public use," and the ways in which American courts have often neglected it.
Twenty-five yeago ago, when the Court first announced, in United States v. Robinson, that the police could search the area under the control of a person they were arresting, the Justices offered two rationales for what was, in effect, an exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement that searches ordinarily be authorized by search warrants.
As the horizontal radii increase more "the blocked sightlines decreases in advance of the object height amendment requirement".
What about the Fourth Amendment requirement of probable cause to use as evidence in past crimes?
In their decision in Kentucky v. King, for instance -- a ruling that completely undermines the Fourth Amendment requirement of a warrant before entering someone's home -- the Court held that police officers can forcibly enter a person's home, without a warrant and for nonviolent offenses, based only on the mere suspicion that the occupant may possess an illegal substance (most likely marijuana).
Added to that, recently the U.S. Supreme Court effectively decimated the Fourth Amendment in an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King by giving police more leeway to smash down doors of homes or apartments without a warrant when in search of illegal drugs which they suspect might be destroyed if the Fourth Amendment requirement of a warrant were followed.
In addition to the Eighth Amendment requirements, the Fourteenth Amendment states that no State "shall..
3 Preventing the destruction of evidence may also justify dispensing with Fourth Amendment requirements in other contexts.
Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown.
The court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has incrementally undermined McCain's landmark campaign finance act by saying it doesn't meet First Amendment requirements.
However, a subpoena may not be used to obtain information or evidence protected by the Fourth Amendment unless Fourth Amendment requirements are satisfied.
