Really? considering that’s one of the reasons for an amending formula in the Constitution, and that several constitutional amendments have been passed to overturn Supreme Court decisions, that seems a bit difficult to argue, both from the perspective of original intent and historical example:
[ul][li]XIth Amendment (state immunity from federal court jurisdiction), overturning Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793);[/li]
[li]XIIIth Amendment (abolition of slavery), overturning one aspect of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856);[/li]
[li]XIVth Amendment (citizenship of all individuals born within the jurisdiction of the United States), overturning another aspect of Dred Scott;[/li]
[li]XVIth Amendment (authorising federal income tax), overturning Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895);[/li]
[li]XIXth Amendment (women’s suffrage), overturning Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874);[/li]
[li]XXIVth Amendment (abolition of the poll tax qualification in federal elections), overturning Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937);[/li]
[li]XXVIth Amendment (lowering minimum voting age to 18), overturning one aspect of Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).[/li][/ul]