A Judge usurps power and declares something to be legal or illegal without the people voting to make it so, and you say the response should be to overturn the incorrect Judge decision with a constitutional amendment?
Ever hear of "Abortion on demand", or "Gay" marriage? Even though the vast majority of people were against these things, they still became the "law of the land" just because Judges deliberately lied about the law.
Efforts to overturn them have come to naught because a sufficient number of people like the new "laws" such to prevent it's overturn by the process of amendment.
But this ignores the fact of how our laws are supposed to work. The *BURDEN* of changing the law should fall on those who wish to change it, not on those who wish to keep it as it is. Getting a Judge to flip a law is a short circuit of the process. You should not be demanding the ordinary citizenry restore a law to it's formal meaning, you should be demanding that those intent on changing a law should be required to go through the work of changing it rather than using a tin pot little dictator judge to do it for them.
The burden should fall on those who would change the law, not on those who want it left as it is.
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. 1790 Constitution of the State of Massachusetts.
Notice, there is no comma after the word equal that exempts negro slaves. My guess is that the Presiding Judge interpreted the Massachusetts Constitution exactly as the wording implied. Do you have a different interpretation of the words “ All men are born free and equal”. If so, would really like to hear your interpretation of that phrase.