You: "Your 'abortion amendment' would not be Constitutional."
If 2/3rds of each house of Congress, and 3/4ths of the States approved it, it would be.
If a Constitutional Convention approved it, it would be.
There is no "override clause" in the Constitution. An Amendment duly passed through the amendment process is always constitutional by definition. I am having the greatest degree of difficulty really believing that you think otherwise. What's the basis for the argument.
Really.
Seriously.
I'm not playing a rhetorical game.
How can something be "unconstitutional" if it is enacted precisely following all the terms of the Constitution?
I will agree that the result could be HORRIBLE, if the country went nuts for some reason, but "unconstitutional"?
How?
Vicomte13 wrote:
An Amendment duly passed through the amendment process is always constitutional by definition. I am having the greatest degree of difficulty really believing that you think otherwise.
What's the basis for the argument?
How can something be "unconstitutional" if it is enacted precisely following all the terms of the Constitution?
______________________________________
An Amendment, or any law, that violates the principles of individual liberty in our Constitution, would be null & void.
Marshall sums up this principle here: --
" --- the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
But to 'get' the overall concept, you have to study the opinion, not in its legal details, but in our Constitution as being a protector of an individuals rights to life, liberty & property.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Address:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm