Let us say that someone is elected President of the United States. Let us assume that this person finds certain portions of the Constitution to be distasteful. Let us further postulate that the House and Senate do not agree with said conclusion, making removal/change of that portion of the Constitution to be impossible by normal legislative process.
Let us further state that the President and his administration have declared that they will use whatever means are available to change the Constitution without really changing it. The law will still be in the Constitution, but it will be so crippled by Executive Order as to be meaningless.
Finally, let us note that the portion of the Constitution which is to be obviated is as follows:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Oh, you say, but that’s not the right one. It’s the Second Amendment, not the Fifteenth Amendment which is in current jeopardy by President Obama and his administration.
Is there any practical difference?