GOP repeal of The Obamacare.
Scotus VS The Obamacare & The Massachusetts Mandated Health Insurance Law.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of both houses concurring), That the following article be proposed to the legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the said Constitution, namely: Article XIII. Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
1) Does the SCOTUS have the *authority* to overturn a constitutional amendment? No, for all the reasons as above .
2) Does the SCOTUS have the *power* to do so in practice? Yes. It can issue a ruling that eviscerates an amendment of any legal meaning, and that ruling will be final and unappealable. The example of this is the Slaughterhouse Cases opinion, which in practical terms read nearly all meaning out of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court has power.The Massachusetts Court has power either.
The U.S. Supreme Court has no power.The Massachusetts Court has no power either.
A part of the US Constitution would only be invalid if it is inconsistent with another part -- and if two parts are inconsistent like that, then one way of resolving the problem is to go with the part enacted later. So, if it were ever asked to do so, the SCOTUS could declare the Eighteenth Amendment now invalid, since it is inconsistent with the Twenty-First Amendment (which repealed it).
"No," the SCOTUS can't say an amendment is unconstitutional, but they can interpret the constitution in such a way that it renders the part of the constitution as ineffective. So in reality, yes they can do this.
This is the joint resolution adopting the Thirteenth Amendment and proposing it to the states for ratification. Like any other measure enacted by Congress, it is subject to the constitutional and other provisions for enactment -- and that is at least in principle reviewable by the Court. A proposed amendment not properly enacted by Congress or properly ratified is not an effective amendment, and no part (at least yet) of the Constitution.
The VERDICT must be: UPHELD by NO other means,under the Constitution, The Scotus can do much about it..
The President is right on this matter pertaining what I have refers above.
#2.56 - Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:52 PM EDT