I doubt it. The 14th amendment has been in place a long time and there are plenty of legal precedents to make it settled law.
You don't need another constitutional amendment any more than you need another constitutional amendment to overturn anti-gun laws. The underlying amendment is already there - it just needs to be intrepreted like it was meant to be.
I disagree. I don't want to rely on the whims of future SCOTUS' to interpret the law. A well-written, unambiguous constitutional amendment will insure that they will not have the power to decide in the future.
"I disagree. I don't want to rely on the whims of future SCOTUS' to interpret the law. A well-written, unambiguous constitutional amendment will insure that they will not have the power to decide in the future."
In your vision, and it's rather bizarre, it relies on continually passing constitutional amendments to accomplish the same thing as they are ignored by activist courts, instead of just resorting back to the original interpretation ofthem.
By your same 'logic', you'd see another amendment to restore first amendment rights violated by mccain feingold, instead of just bringing a case to the supreme court that overtuns mccain feingold.
Within a couple decades, we'd be saddled with hundreds of amendments that were duplicates of each other in order to get rid of bad laws, instead of doing what has always been done and rectifying the laws with the amendments already there.
Congratulations on one of the most bizarre interpretations of the constitutional process I've ever seen. You've outdone just about every constitutional scholar in the country with your "just add another amendment!" approach.