And it's a good one. I would ask, though, how would you provide for redress where a large majority (i.e., 81 per cent in the case of the Monument) of the population felt in their bones that the supreme court was wrong on an issue and a constitutional amendment to over-ride the court's opinion was illegal?
Well, it proves that we are not a 'democracy' after all. But it also dis-enfranchises the will of We the People through representaive government in the resolution of hard grievances. Do we have a flaw in our system?
If we do, I would guess it would be in the unknown character and agenda of the appointed justices. Not only a flaw, but a time-bomb that could destroy our Republic. I can't believe the number of people who are split on this Monument issue. Not just politically split, but emotionally split. Some say, 'I agree, but the rule of law should prevail.' Others say, 'there is no rule of law on this issue. No law has been broken.' -- and they are both honest in their statements.
A dilemma, for sure. Puts me in mind of the two factions arguing the law two thousand years ago. One group following the rule of law when they enforced the penalty for blasphemy (and rightfully so), and the other group willing to suffer the penalty for following an unwritten, but higher law felt in their bones and unknown to the former.
It appears 'these bones are rising again' in Alabama.
One of the first things you learn in Constitutional Law class is - READ THE CONSTITUTION.