[Viva Le Dissention]

The Supreme Court can't declare a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional.

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.

I think the most you can say is that it has never been done before.

[Sonny M]

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.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

What? Where do you people come from? The Supreme Court is in place to interpret the law. I guess you think the Supreme Court can get rid of the Bill of Rights? Geezus.

[rwfromkansas]

Once it is part of the Constitution, the justices INTERPRET the amendment, not judge it.

[aristeides]

A pretty strong constitutional argument was made against the 18th (Prohibition) Amendment, on the grounds that, by giving the federal government power over an essentially state matter, it changed the very nature of the relationship between the states and the federal government. In making short work of that argument, the Supreme Court made some pretty sweeping statements about the validity of all validly adopted amendments.

[Arkinsaw]

I think the most you can say is that it has never been done before. The Constitution belongs to the people through the offices of their their States. They can alter the Constitution in any way they see fit even including creating a new branch of government or eliminating an existing one if they so desire. If the people wanted to they could amend the Constition to eliminate the Supreme Court entirely.

In fact, the people, through their States could call a convention of States, get rid of the current Constitution, and establish a new one if they so desired.

It would take a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and our form of government to believe that the Supreme Court can overrule 2/3rds of the State legislatures agreement on an amendment or to even believe that the Supreme Court even exists except at the pleasure of the people and the States.

[Republican Wildcat]

The Constitution is unconstitutional...well, I suppose given the logic used in some of the rulings last week, it could happen.