[Publius Valerius]

I can see the Supreme Court ruling on Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress or the States, but does the Supreme Court have the authority to strike down parts of the Constitution itself? I wouldn't think so.

This is an interesting debate that hasn't been fully explored. Much like my previous post, I would say that parliamentary supremacy rules, and the Supreme Court does not have the authority to strike down a constitutional amendment as unconstitutional.

You may be interested to know that a similar issue was recently (past 10 or 15 years) litigated in Nevada over school funding, I believe. That situation was slightly different because there the Court found that two separate provisions of the Nevada Constitution were contradictory, and eventually, as I recall, held part of the Nevada constitution unconstitutional.

[Political Junkie Too]

In California, we routinely have Constitutionally allowed propositions by the people on the ballot, and then the courts routinely strike them down as unconstitutional. It's a game that we play here every two years.

-PJ