to constitutional interpretation. Accordingly, the court will make no findings on this issue. Nevertheless, the court will assume the rules of statutory construction, and thus implied repeal, are applicable to the Constitution for the purposes of this order. The court notes that Article V of the Constitution provides an express method to amend the Constitution. Even assuming the rules of statutory construction are applicable, it could be argued that the Framers did not intend the Constitution to be modified through means other than amendment, such as implied repeal. However, as plaintiff points out, the Supreme Court has recognized implicit modifications to the Constitution absent express amendment. See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (<HOLDING>). It is “a cardinal principle of statutory
holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding that in enacting title vii congress abrogated eleventh amendment immunity holding that title ix was enacted pursuant to  5 of the fourteenth amendment consequently under seminole tribe title ix 42 usc  2000d7 abrogated states eleventh amendment immunity holding that congress exceeded its authority under  5 of the fourteenth amendment in attempting to abrogate the states eleventh amendment immunity in adea suits holding the fourteenth amendment partially abrogated eleventh amendment sovereign immunity