I think there needs to be a senate & congress vote AND a majority of states need to ratify the amendment after which the Supreme court does a review.
I’m not sure a Supreme Court review is an official part of the process—the SC can review the constitutionality of ordinary laws, but amendments are constitutional by definition.
Wouldn’t the Supreme Court need to review to make sure 1 new amendment doesn’t include wording that conflicts with other amendments thought? Just asking, not sure about any of these, in fact I cannot even remember any amendment ratified after the Women’s right to vote in the 1920s.
No, by definition a Constitutional Amendment would be part of the Constitution. All branches of government derive their authority from the Constitution. Simply put, the Constitution is above SCOTUS.
The Supreme Court can intercede if the process for ratification is not followed, but as long as the agreed upon process is followed there is literally nothing a judge could do.
I’m not sure a Supreme Court review is an official part of the process—the SC can review the constitutionality of ordinary laws, but amendments are constitutional by definition.
Wouldn’t the Supreme Court need to review to make sure 1 new amendment doesn’t include wording that conflicts with other amendments thought? Just asking, not sure about any of these, in fact I cannot even remember any amendment ratified after the Women’s right to vote in the 1920s.
No, by definition a Constitutional Amendment would be part of the Constitution. All branches of government derive their authority from the Constitution. Simply put, the Constitution is above SCOTUS.
The Supreme Court can intercede if the process for ratification is not followed, but as long as the agreed upon process is followed there is literally nothing a judge could do.