From George Washington's Farewell Address:
The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.
If Congress passes a particular law, and the USSC finds it outside their constitutional authority, and Congress may then simply override their objections, of what purpose is the process of amendment?
Gun Free Schools Act was passed and then struck down by SCOTUS 5/4.
Those who signed the bill didn't have the benefit of judicial review prior to passing it. After SCOTUS opined against the law, the President and Congress could review all the opinions in that case and decide on a course of action.
Suppose H. R. 3920 had been in effect. The President could refuse to enforce SCOTUS opinion without fear of impeachment/removal, since 2/3 of Congress agreed with him. H.R. 3920 is an insurance policy for the President.
OTOH- Suppose after reviewing SCOTUS opinions, some in Congress reconsidered, and the President didn’t have 34 Senators with him to reject majority opinion in SCOTUS. The majority opinion stands.
In this case, it would have been an insurance policy for Bill Clinton, and a victory for a liberal agenda. This is a two-edged sword, and I find the idea that "political conservatives" are so quick to alter a fundamental balance of power for some short term objectives rather odd.
I don't see anything there that addresses the salient point. If Congress can override the Supreme Court, why do we need amendments? Beyond that, what happens if the Supreme Court finds HR 3920 unconstitutional?