If you don't think lawyers review an amendment for its constitutionality before it goes before Congress
I would imagine lawyers review it for clarity and for what impact it will have on the constitution, but "reviewing an amendment for its constitutionality" is almost meaningless. There is only one way an amendment can be against the constitution (see below)
I don't need to check with a university. I know I am right and that you are wrong.
I don't know how to convince you if you aren't willing to do the research. All I can think of is quoting the part of the constitution that creates the amendment process.
"Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "
Apparently an amendment can be unconstitutional if and ONLY if it deprives a state of its equal suffrage in the Senate. (the other restriction is now void because it is after 1808) You could eliminate the Supreme Court, You could eliminate the House of Representatives, or the office of President of the United States. You could repeal any other amendment including any amendment in the bill of rights. You could change things so there are 1, or 3, or 40 senators from each state but you couldn't eliminate the Senate, eliminate the US, or make the number of senators from each state different.
It would be interesting if an amendment was passed to try and repeal the specific limitation. In other words you don't say that more populous states get more senators, but you remove the constitutional provision against later amending of the constitution to require an equal number of senators. I don't see how that would be unconstitutional, but I also don't see it happening.
Something like an amendment against same sex marriage has no effect on the states having the same number of senators so it can not be unconstitutional. The reason that an amendment was proposed was because there was concern that the USSC would consider law making such a requirement unconstitutional and the only way to overcome a USSC decision on the constitutionality of a law is to pass and ratify a constitutional amendment.
Tim |
