Replies

The Supreme Court can not overturn a Constitutional Amendment

Isn't is a pity that you are required to remind somebody of this fact?

If the congress and the states pass an amendment that states all cheese except for Extra Sharp cheddar is illegal, the supreme court must honor that as law.

The constitution is living, each time it is amended it changes. If people genuinely want changes, they can petition the congress to pass an amendment. If for example, somebody wants to jail homosexuals, they could pass an amendment to the constitution, get it ratified by the states, and it would be the law of the land.

Why is this concept so difficult for people to grasp?

"...each time it is amended it changes... Why is this concept so difficult for people to grasp?"

Because rulings like this show that it doesn't need to be amended to change.
No amendment has changed the constitutionality of these laws, it was done by a court.

And, as is shown by the responses to this ruling on FR, that is how many people expect the Constitution to be changed.

Why would we ever pass another amendment...

There is certainly no need to amend a 'living Constitution'.

If the congress and the states pass an amendment that states all cheese except for Extra Sharp cheddar is illegal, the supreme court must honor that as law.

So then, why did the Supreme Court ignore the 10th Amendment in the Lawrence decision? And how does Congress get away with ignoring the 27th Amendment every year?

"The constitution is living, each time it is amended it changes. If people genuinely want changes, they can petition the congress to pass an amendment. If for example, somebody wants to jail homosexuals, they could pass an amendment to the constitution, get it ratified by the states, and it would be the law of the land."

Up until last week, states had the power to regulate sodomy and greater latitude than now in defining based on their conception of the public morals how to regulate sex acts. As Scalia made clear, at no time in 210 years has the supreme court decided otherwise and Bowers and others were strong precedent *not* to go the path they took.

The decision was, in effect, 9 Justices enacting a constitutional amendment! But wait, amendments need 3/4 states. a text passed by 2/3rds in Congress. etc.

Why is it so difficult to grasp this: There is a procedure to amend the Constitution, and this ruling is NOT IT.
the ruling is unwarranted and unjustified, a 'whole cloth' invention just like the abominable Roe v Wade decision and others of the same ilk.

"The Constitution i swhatever the Supreme Court says it is ... the last time it said it." - some wit