Simone Lawson
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) interprets the Constitution and decides what is constitutional and what is not. While the US Constitution does not restrict the ways in which it may be amended, there is a concept in judicial review called an unconstitutional constitutional amendment. This idea suggests that even a properly ratified amendment can be unconstitutional if it conflicts with a constitutional norm, value, or principle. While SCOTUS could theoretically reject an amendment that was not enacted correctly or threatened the basic structure of the Constitution, it is unlikely to do so in practice.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| SCOTUS power to stop a constitutional amendment | SCOTUS can't interfere unless the ratification process is contentious. |
| Grounds for SCOTUS to reject an amendment | If the amendment wasn't enacted correctly or if it conflicted with an old provision. |
| Possibility of SCOTUS rejecting an amendment | Unlikely, but possible in a dire situation, such as an amendment leading to dictatorship. |
| Unconstitutional constitutional amendment | An amendment that goes against an unchangeable provision in the constitution or fundamentally changes it. |
| Examples of unconstitutional amendments | Abolishing the Senate, converting to a monarchy or dictatorship, or violating fundamental rights. |
| Unconstitutional amendment doctrine | Adopted by various courts and scholars worldwide, but not widely accepted in the US. |
Explore related products
![The First Amendment: [Connected Ebook] (Aspen Casebook) (Aspen Casebook Series)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61p49hyM5WL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
- SCOTUS can't interfere unless the ratification process is contentious
- SCOTUS can't block amendments that conflict with old provisions
- SCOTUS can reject amendments that threaten democracy
- SCOTUS can't block amendments unless they're unconstitutional
- SCOTUS can't block amendments unless they're improperly ratified
SCOTUS can't interfere unless the ratification process is contentious
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) interprets the Constitution and decides what is constitutional and what is not. The Constitution of the United States contains no restrictions on the ways in which it may be amended. Amendments are how changes are made to the Constitution, and an amendment by definition cannot be unconstitutional.
However, an amendment can be unconstitutional if it goes against some unchangeable provision in the Constitution. For example, an amendment that deprives a state of equal representation in the Senate without its consent would be unconstitutional. This is because the Constitution explicitly states that Congress and the states can amend the Constitution. Therefore, it would be unconstitutional for SCOTUS to interfere unless the ratification process is contentious.
The "unconstitutional constitutional amendment" legal theory suggests that even a properly passed and ratified amendment can be unconstitutional if it conflicts with a constitutional norm, value, or principle. This theory has been adopted by various courts and scholars worldwide, but it is largely untested in the US. Some legal scholars argue that SCOTUS could utilize this doctrine to strike down unequal apportionment in the Senate, but it is unlikely they would embrace this doctrine anytime soon.
In rare cases, SCOTUS might reject an amendment if it was not enacted correctly or if it conflicted with an old provision. However, this would be a break from tradition and could trigger a severe constitutional crisis. Ultimately, the vast majority of the country would need to support an amendment for SCOTUS to interfere, as they would be going against a democratic supermajority.
Nevada Constitution: Amendments and Their Locations
You may want to see also
SCOTUS can't block amendments that conflict with old provisions
The US Constitution does not restrict the ways in which it can be amended. Amendments are changes to the Constitution and, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional. However, an amendment may be deemed unconstitutional if it conflicts with an unchangeable provision in the Constitution. For example, a State cannot be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without its consent.
The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) interprets the Constitution and decides what is constitutional and what is not. While SCOTUS cannot block amendments that conflict with old provisions, it could reject an amendment if the situation were dire enough, such as an amendment converting the US into a dictatorship. This would trigger a severe constitutional crisis.
The idea of an "unconstitutional constitutional amendment" is not new and has been around since at least the 1890s. This doctrine holds that a constitution has basic features, such as fundamental rights and the separation of powers, that cannot be amended. However, this doctrine has not been widely tested in the US and is considered a controversial concept.
In summary, while SCOTUS plays a critical role in interpreting the Constitution, it cannot block amendments that conflict with old provisions. The court's role is to interpret and apply the law, not to create or veto laws, including constitutional amendments.
The Fourteenth Amendment Explained: Understanding Citizenship and Due Process
You may want to see also
SCOTUS can reject amendments that threaten democracy
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) interprets the Constitution and decides what is constitutional and what is not. While the US Constitution does not restrict the ways in which it may be amended, SCOTUS could reject amendments that threaten democracy if they are not enacted correctly or conflict with an older provision. For example, an amendment that establishes a monarchy or abolishes the Senate would be undemocratic and conflict with existing provisions.
The concept of an "unconstitutional constitutional amendment" suggests that even a properly ratified amendment can be unconstitutional if it conflicts with a constitutional norm, value, or principle. This doctrine has been around since at least the 1890s and has been embraced by some legal scholars and courts worldwide, including in Taiwan. However, it is not explicitly stated in the US Constitution, and SCOTUS has largely defined its own power.
If an amendment threatened democracy, SCOTUS could theoretically reject it, but this would be unprecedented and trigger a severe constitutional crisis. The court's decision would depend on the specific circumstances and the makeup of the court at the time. While it is challenging to overturn a Supreme Court ruling, Congress could achieve similar goals without amending the Constitution by enacting statutes that extend constitutional principles through its enumerated powers.
Free Press: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
SCOTUS can't block amendments unless they're unconstitutional
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) interprets the Constitution and decides what is constitutional and what is not. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, with a clear amendment process and no restrictions on the substance of amendments. Amendments are how changes are made to the Constitution.
While the SCOTUS can block amendments that are not enacted correctly, it cannot interfere with the amendment process unless the ratification process is contentious. This is because the Constitution gives the federal courts jurisdiction over "cases" and "controversies". This has been interpreted to mean that courts can only hear legal disputes about things that are actually happening, and "advisory opinions" about possible future laws or events are prohibited.
An amendment can be deemed unconstitutional if it goes against an unchangeable provision in the Constitution. For example, a State cannot be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without its consent. This is known as the “unconstitutional constitutional amendment" doctrine, which has been adopted by various courts and legal scholars worldwide. However, this doctrine has not been tested in the US.
In conclusion, the SCOTUS cannot block amendments unless they are deemed unconstitutional, which is a complex and rare process.
Amendments: The Constitution's Evolution and Adaptation
You may want to see also
SCOTUS can't block amendments unless they're improperly ratified
The US Constitution does not restrict the ways in which it may be amended. The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) interprets the Constitution and decides what is constitutional and what is not. An amendment, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional.
However, an amendment can be deemed unconstitutional if it goes against an unchangeable provision in the Constitution. For instance, a State cannot be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without its consent. This is known as the "unconstitutional constitutional amendment" doctrine, which has been adopted by various courts and legal scholars worldwide.
In the US context, SCOTUS could only block an amendment if it was improperly ratified or enacted. For example, if an amendment conflicted with an old provision, SCOTUS might try to follow both to the extent possible, but if that were not possible, it would follow the more recent amendment. In extreme cases, such as an amendment that established a dictatorship, SCOTUS could theoretically reject it, although this would likely trigger a severe constitutional crisis.
While the US Constitution does not restrict the amendment process, other countries have provisions that restrict changes to certain parts of their constitutions. For example, in Taiwan, the Council of Grand Justices (Constitutional Court) has struck down a Constitutional Amendment, setting a precedent for court review of amendments.
Amendment History: The 16th's Addition to the Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, it cannot. The US Constitution contains no restrictions on the ways in which it may be amended. The only grounds for rejecting an amendment would be if it was not enacted correctly or if it conflicted with an older provision.
An unconstitutional constitutional amendment is a concept in judicial review that suggests even a properly ratified amendment can be unconstitutional if it conflicts with a constitutional norm, value, or principle.
Congress can overturn a Supreme Court ruling by proposing an amendment to the Constitution with a two-thirds majority in both houses, which must then be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
An example of an unconstitutional amendment would be one that converts a democratic government into a monarchy or dictatorship.
The basic structure doctrine is a principle followed by some common-law countries, which states that the Constitution has basic features, such as fundamental rights and the separation of powers, that cannot be amended.
