Isabella Carter
The ability of courts to block constitutional amendments varies across different countries. In the United States, the Supreme Court cannot block an amendment as long as it has been ratified and does not deprive a state of equal suffrage in the senate or modify the named sections of Article I. The only grounds for the Supreme Court to reject an amendment would be if it was not enacted correctly or if it transforms the constitution into something other than a constitution. In Finland, the Parliament enjoys parliamentary sovereignty, and its acts cannot be stricken down by any court. In Taiwan, however, there is a precedent for court review of constitutional amendments.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Can courts block constitutional amendments? | No, if an amendment is passed by one of the ways to create a Constitutional amendment, it becomes part of the Constitution and the Supreme Court cannot block it. |
| Can the Supreme Court rule a constitutional amendment as "unconstitutional"? | No, if something is in the Constitution, it is, by definition, constitutional. The Supreme Court could only say that the amendment was not properly ratified and so never took effect. |
| Can Congress overturn Supreme Court rulings? | Yes, if the Supreme Court is interpreting a federal statute, Congress can enact a new or revised statute to correct the Court. |
| Can the Supreme Court overturn Congress? | Yes, the Supreme Court plays a critical role in all matters of federal law, but it doesn't always have the final say. |
Explore related products
$45.61 $52
What You'll Learn
Supreme Court's ability to block amendments
The Supreme Court's ability to block amendments is a complex and highly debated topic. While the Supreme Court generally cannot block constitutional amendments, there are certain scenarios where its intervention is possible.
Firstly, it's important to understand that the Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution and decide what is constitutional. The Constitution is the highest authority regarding the government's powers and limitations. Any amendments to the Constitution are meant to be made through a defined process, which includes ratification. Once an amendment is passed and ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court cannot block it.
However, the Supreme Court can intervene if the correct procedure for ratification is not followed. In such cases, the Court may declare that the amendment was not validly brought into force due to procedural irregularities. This is based on the Court's ability to rule on facts and issue rulings in appropriate suits.
Additionally, there is a concept known as "unconstitutional constitutional amendments," which suggests that even a properly passed and ratified amendment can be deemed unconstitutional if it conflicts with core constitutional principles or transforms the nature of the Constitution itself. For example, an amendment that eliminates the rule of law or replaces a democratic republic with a monarchy would be considered a revolution rather than an amendment. However, the power of the Supreme Court to declare such amendments unconstitutional is debated, and no amendment to the US Constitution has ever been ruled unconstitutional by a court.
In other countries, such as India, the Supreme Court has articulated the basic structure doctrine, stating that a constitutional amendment violating the basic structure of the Constitution should be declared unconstitutional. Similarly, the Supreme Court of Honduras found part of its original constitution unconstitutional due to conflicting with core principles. These examples demonstrate that the Supreme Court's ability to block amendments varies across different legal systems and constitutional frameworks.
Constitutional Amendments: Virginia's Passed Proposals
You may want to see also
Amendments bypassing ratification
The Supreme Court cannot block a constitutional amendment unless the correct procedure for ratification was not followed. If an amendment is passed by one of the prescribed methods, it becomes part of the Constitution. The Supreme Court can, however, determine whether an amendment meets the criteria for ratification. For example, in Coleman v. Miller, the Supreme Court declared that the question of the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of states must act is a political question to be determined by Congress.
There is also debate about whether certain amendments would be invalid, such as an amendment replacing republican democracy with another model. However, there is nothing to suggest that the relevant article is unamendable, and a widespread movement to replace republican democracy, supported by the required majority of states, would likely not be stopped by a court.
In addition, the concept of an "unconstitutional constitutional amendment" has been proposed, suggesting that even a properly ratified amendment can be unconstitutional on substantive grounds, such as conflicting with a constitutional norm, value, or principle. For example, an amendment that eliminates the rule of law may be considered unconstitutional. However, this doctrine has been criticised, with some arguing that a constitution's malleability is part of its identity, and thus it is improper for courts to alter it.
The Eighth Amendment: Protecting Us from Cruel Punishments
You may want to see also
Amendments violating state sovereignty
The Supreme Court cannot block a constitutional amendment unless the correct procedure for ratification was not followed. However, the Court can interpret the Constitution and decide what is constitutional and what is not.
The Tenth Amendment expressly declares the constitutional policy that Congress may not exercise power in a fashion that impairs the States' integrity or their ability to function effectively in a federal system. This was implied in the National League of Cities v. Usery case in 1976, which was later overruled by Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth. in 1985. The Court conceded that the legislation at issue—the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wages and maximum hours requirements—was "undoubtedly within the scope of the Commerce Clause". However, the Court found that there are attributes of sovereignty attaching to every state government that may not be impaired by Congress.
In United Transp. Union v. LIRR, the Court clarified that Tenth Amendment protections apply only when Congress regulates "States as States", and not merely the activities of private individuals or businesses. In Bell v. New Jersey, the Court held that state sovereignty protections under the Tenth Amendment did not apply to "obligations voluntarily assumed as a condition of federal funding".
There is also some debate about whether an amendment replacing republican democracy with some other model would be invalid. However, there is nothing to suggest that this is unamendable, and a widespread movement to replace republican democracy, supported by the required majority of states, would likely not be stopped by a court.
The concept of an "unconstitutional constitutional amendment" has been around since at least the 1890s. Former Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas M. Cooley embraced this concept in 1893, arguing that amendments "cannot be revolutionary; they must be harmonious with the body of the instrument". He further argued that an amendment converting a democratic republican government into an aristocracy or a monarchy would not be an amendment but rather a revolution that would require the creation and adoption of a new constitution.
Understanding Proposed Amendments to the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Amendments conflicting with constitutional values
The concept of an "unconstitutional constitutional amendment" has been around since at least the 1890s. An amendment that conflicts with constitutional values is one example of an unconstitutional amendment.
An amendment that enshrines white supremacy and denies the human dignity of non-whites would be unconstitutional as it conflicts with the commonly cited constitutional value of equality and the constitutional goal of advancing the common good. Similarly, an amendment barring most political speech would be unconstitutional as it would conflict with the First Amendment and render the rest of the Constitution meaningless.
An amendment that transforms a constitution into some entity other than a constitution, for instance, by eliminating the rule of law, would also be unconstitutional. However, some critics argue that a constitution's extreme malleability is a part of its identity, and therefore it is improper for courts to alter it.
In the United States, the Supreme Court cannot block an amendment unless the correct procedure for ratification was not followed. However, the Supreme Court can decide how conflicts between amendments should be resolved and it does have authority by common law precedent.
Amendment's Power: Outlawing Poll Taxes and Protecting Voting Rights
You may want to see also
Amendments changing basic constitutional features
The Supreme Court cannot block an amendment to the Constitution unless the correct procedure for ratification wasn't followed. However, there is some debate about whether certain amendments that change basic constitutional features, such as replacing a republican democracy with another form of government, would be invalid.
In the United States, it has been established that the only thing that cannot be amended by normal means in the Constitution is depriving a state of its equal representation in the Senate without its consent. In India, the Supreme Court has held that Parliament's power to amend is not unlimited and cannot change the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, separation of powers, federalism, secularism, and the principle of free and fair elections. Similarly, the Constitution of Brazil forbids amendments that intend to abolish individual rights or alter the fundamental framework of the State.
The concept of an "unconstitutional constitutional amendment" has been around since at least the 1890s, with former Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas M. Cooley arguing that amendments "must be harmonious with the body of the instrument" and cannot be "revolutionary." This idea has been further developed by legal scholars such as Israeli academic Yaniv Roznai, who argues that even a properly ratified amendment can be unconstitutional if it conflicts with a constitutional norm, value, or principle.
In some countries, such as Finland, the Parliament enjoys parliamentary sovereignty, and its acts do not undergo judicial review, so the constitutionality of amendments is a purely political question. In contrast, other countries, such as Germany, have specific procedures for amending their Basic Law, which serves as their constitution.
Amending the Constitution: Congress' Role and Power
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The US Supreme Court cannot block a constitutional amendment unless the correct procedure for ratification wasn't followed. An example of this would be if only one of the two houses approved an amendment by a 2/3 majority and tried to send it to the states.
An unconstitutional constitutional amendment is based on the idea that even a properly passed and ratified amendment can be unconstitutional if it conflicts with a constitutional or extra-constitutional norm, value, and/or principle.
No. If something is in the Constitution, it is, by definition, constitutional. The only thing the Supreme Court could do is say that the amendment was not properly ratified and so never took effect.
Yes, Congress can overturn Supreme Court rulings by enacting new statutes that extend constitutional principles through its enumerated powers.
The Supreme Court can overturn Congress if it believes Congress is exceeding its powers under the Constitution.
