I’ve done a little more reading. I found that Sprague was not the first time the Supreme Court ruled on procedural questions related to an amendment proposal. That appears to have been Hawke v Smith in 1920. There was also Dillon v Gloss in 1921, Sprague in 1931, and Coleman v. Miller in 1939.
All of these decisions were addressing procedural issues in amendment proposals. So you may be thinking what’s my point?
Suppose the SDMB had existed back in 1914. And I had posted a question asking if the Supreme Court had the authority to rule on procedural issues related to an amendment proposal. People might have responded quite factually that the Supreme Court had never issued such a decision. And they might have concluded from that, that the Supreme Court never would rule on a procedural issue related to an amendment proposal.
But the Supreme Court has now done this at least four time since 1914.
It’s now 2024. I’m asking asking if the Supreme Court had the authority to rule on substantive issues related to an amendment proposal. People are responding factually that the Supreme Court had never issued such a decision. And they appear to be concluding from that, that the Supreme Court never will rule on a substantive issue related to an amendment proposal.
Okay, now can somebody explain to me what factors exist in 2024 that justify making this prediction of what the Supreme Court might do in the future that were not factors in 1914?