[musanon]

The Constitution and its Amendments are the "Law of the Land". -- See Article VI.

Which is not the same thing as "a law passed by Congress".

Both statute law, - and Constitutional law, - are subject to judicial review.

I say again---Amendments to the Constitution are NOT the same as laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court has no power to nullify such.

The USSC has the power of judical review for all cases arising before it. The Constitutionality of the 18th was questioned, and they reviewed the case.

So. The court did NOT nulify the Eighteenth Amendment, now did it??

The fact that they did review the case proves my point tho; - They were deemed to have that power.

A failed "lawyer trick" is NOT a precedent in jurisprudence. I say again. The Supreme Court CANNOT nullify Amendments to the Constitution. If three-quarters of state legislatures decide to do so, they can convene a new Constitutional Convention, throw out the entire existing Constitution, and start over from scratch.

The majority rules? -- Nope, not in this Republic, and not over our basic Constitutional principles.

As Marshall said in M v M:

" --- The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future govern-ment, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated.
The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. --- "

[jwalsh07]

The Supreme Law of the Land is a three pronged fork, the Constitution in it's entirety and the laws and treaties passed by Congress and signed by the executive. The Constitution gives no such power to the SCOTUS which authorizies them to participate in the Amendment process as outlined in that Constitution. None, nada, zippo.

[jwalsh07]

The majority rules? -- Nope, not in this Republic, and not over our basic Constitutional principles.

Yes the majority rules in this Constitutional Republic with the one important caveat that rights are not abridged.

[Wonder Warthog]

Wrong on all counts. A Constitutional Amendment is a change to the Constitution itself, and thus cannot be over-ruled or changed by the Supreme Court. If 3/4th's of state legislatures so vote, they can convene a Constitutional Convention, which can eliminate the current Constitution (and the Supreme Court itself, if they so choose) and replace them with a completely new governing document.

You can tap-dance around the issue all you like. The fundamental question is completely clear--the people can amend the Constitution in any way they so choose, and the Supreme Court has no option other than to go along with their fianl judgment.