[LexBaird]

Something is not constitutional or otherwise just because the USSC says it is.

Well, yeah. It is. That's how it works.

And if the USSC is thought wrong, then there is the check and balance of Article V. This was what was employed to overturn the effects of the Dred Scott decision by the Taney court. There are some on these threads who point to the 14th A. as the font of all our current woes, yet they never seem to look at why the Congress and States went to the extraordinary step of passing an amendment.

[Non-Sequitur]

And if the USSC is thought wrong, then there is the check and balance of Article V.

Actually one need look no further than the 11th Amendment to see that process in action. In 1793 the Supreme Court ruled in Chisolm v. Georgia that Article III, Section 2 gave federal courts the authority to hear cases in against states filed by private citizens, and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states. Congress passed the 11th Amendment, it was ratified by the states, and the decision was effectively overturned.

[FredHunter08]

“yet they never seem to look at why the Congress and States went to the extraordinary step of passing an amendment.”

Let’s not forget that the 14th is interpreted in ways it was never intended to be. THAT is the source of our current predicament. Along with our despicable leadership, of course.