Replies

I'm not so sure of this. It's certainly never happened, and I've been involved in several heated discussions over this very subject on this board.

The reason it never has happened is because its simply not allowed. Thats why the supreme court "re-interprets" amendments to say what they want them to say. Using "re-interpretation" and the concept of "living and breating" amendments, allows them to pull the stunts they do.

By definition alone, unconstitional means against the constitution, if its an amendment, its a part of the constitution, it not possible for it to be against itself.

It's happened in other countries (India and Germany, I believe, but I'm truthfully not sure about Germany), and I certainly think it could happen here, given the right circumstances. I doubt that an amendment banning gay marriage, regardless of its intellectual shortcomings, would be the one to make it happen, but let's say there was a constitutional amendment to strip Muslims of due process rights. This certainly flies in the very face of the goals of the constituion.

The question then becomes whether there are "higher" principles for which the constitution stands which are superior to the actual text of the document. I would argue that there are certain liberties and rights that are so fundamental to a free society that they cannot be changed by any government fiat, or a free society would simply no longer exist.