[goldstategop]

Actually, if a federal judge can declare a tate constitution or a provision thereof void, what's to keep the SCOTUS from declaring the U.S Constitution void? In reality, they've already gone a long way towards that by accepting international jurisprudence in how they decide constitutional disputes under controversy. Its not too far-fetched at all to imagine that Canada's acceptance of gay marriage means the U.S must do so as well. Call it a "living tree" theory of constitutional law. Here is a very good reason for abolishing judicial review in the post-modern era.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Borges]

Such a case was brought to them before. Prohibition I think. Someone claimed the Amendment was Unconstitutional. The USSC at the time ruled that they don't have the power to void a Constitutional amendment. Since they have to base their ruling on the text they cannot decide to change the text but only to interpret it.