This isn't a law but a provision of the Constitution. Statutory laws can't even be made in violation of any provision of it because someone feels any particular provision is 'outdated' or 'irrelevant' in their personal opinion. Provisions are absolutely relevant. They are the primal relevance actually. Constitutional provisions deprive the jurisdiction to make any laws in contravention thereto. The only legal and proper way to achieve removing an 'outdated' provision is to amend the Constitution if enough people agree to the proposal and amend it.

And as a matter of practicality, if Constitutional provisions were allowed to be ignored on such claims, then it merely becomes a toothless tiger and society placed at the mercy of whims, even bad ones.

What would an anti-torture advocate say, for example, if pro-torture politicians decided that the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment was "outdated?" What would people who support keeping religion out of government say to Religious Right lobbyists and politicians who think the government and religion should work together putting religious opinions into law and feel the First Amendment is "outdated" and harmful to the "moral health of the nation?" The answer is obvious--they can't breach those amendments and must respect them unless amended to allow them to do so, which naturally they would oppose.

Usurpation of power is what ignoring a Constitutional provision entails. It breaches the fundamental law of the land, and denies those in opposition to the usurper's ideas their due rights under the law of the land to oppose amendments, with the usurpers simply choosing to seize the power over the Constitution and the people.

__________________