Let’s say a state’s Supreme Court says, “This law violates this part of the state constitution here, and that part over there. Thus the law is invalid.” Let’s say the folks opposed to that go through the hoops for a constitutional amendment to nullify the Court’s ruling. Can the court overrule a constitutional amendment?
For example, if the amendment said citizens have no right to call the Governor a fool, or to assemble to protest his policies. Could the court call balderdash, and throw it out?
That hypothetical constitutional amendment would violate the US constitution, which is a higher authority than state constitutions. Federal courts have overruled state laws lots of times.
A court can’t just overturn laws willy-nilly, though. They will overturn inferior laws that contradict higher laws. A state court won’t be able to overturn an amendment to the state constitution.
My understanding is that, by definition, an amendment to the Constitution **changes ** the Constitution, so no, it can’t be unconstitutional. But, IANAL, so…eh.
If you think about it, if it was impossible to introduce amendments to the Constitution that were “in violation” of it, there wouldn’t be any point in amending the Constitution.
My understanding is that if two parts of the Constitution are in conflict and no part of the Constitution resolves the conflict explicitly, then the specific overrides the general.
I can’t but help wonder if this question is related to the concerns of the proposed California Constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages.
I can see the SCOTUS possibly stopping that amendment from unltimately being established, seeing how that the homosexual group is one of the protected-from-discrimination subsets of our population. But that process (going through the SCOTUS) might take time.
I don’t know if the California STate Supreme Court can do it on it’s own, though, but I imagine that they will try.
Can you outline the process by which the SCOCa would go about overturning a constitutional amendment? Unless there was some technicality or procedural problem, they can’t. Sometimes there are provisions that ballot initiatives can only be about 1 issue, and I’ve seen where courts have overturned some that had more than one issue attached to them. But that’s a different matter, since the process by which the initiative came about was flawed.
Well, I was thinking that the SCoCa might extend the protected status concept to the homosexual community here.
Imagine if some yahoo’s tried to reintroduce segregation on buses and water fountains again. There is no US Consitutional Amendment prohibiting segregation (but there is one banning slavery, which was the scenario I was going to first use, but decided against). However, there is Federal law (isn’t there?) prohibiting segregation.
The Cali-Supremes might attempt to say that the proposed amendment is in violation of Federal Anti-discriminatory statutes…
heh. I am not a lawyer, and I know it shows. You got from me the equivalent in value that I paid for it, in law school.
If this question is regarding the CA SSM initiative, then the court can strike it if the initiative itself is flawed, as stated by John Mace.
However, assuming the initiative to ban SSM in CA is duly adopted and integrated into the CA Constitution, then the court would uphold the amendment under state law.
The SSM amendment would conflict with the prior judicial Contitutional interpretations that protect SSM under the state’s due process, equal protection, and privacy provisions of the CA Constitution. How would the court resolve the conflict?
As I stated up-thread, new laws trump old laws. Also, as Rysto said, specific laws trump general laws. Therefore, the SCOCA would likely say that the people of CA have general Constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and privacy, EXCEPT when it comes to SSM, which is specifically excluded.
Well, that’s an interesting question. I guess state courts can and do apply federal law. Thus, a state court can interpret the federal Constitution in a way to declare its own state Constitution unconstitutional. However, that will likely land you in federal court, where the federal courts can overrule the state court on the federal legal question.
Yeah. I was thinking of the amendment that overturned Prohibition. Presumably that contradicted the existing constitution, but that was not a problem, it seems.
The result would be a request for the Supreme Court of the United States to take the case on Writ of Certiorari.
Clearly, an amendment to a state constitution would not be able to be declared violative of the state’s own constitution. The older provisions would be interpreted so that they were in harmony with the newer. See, for an example, the re-interpretation of some aspects of the federal constitution after the addition of the fourteenth amendment, and its provision enabling Congress to pass laws which put the amendment into effect.
However, no state constitution can have provisions which violate the federal constitution.
Looking specifically at the issue of gay marriage in California:
If the California Supreme Court based its decision on the provisions of the California Constitution, the people of California can clearly amend the constitution to eliminate the constitutional requirement allowing gay marriage as interpreted by the CSC. But if the CSC relied in part or whole on the federal constitution, then an amendment to the California Constitution wouldn’t do much. In that case, however, the matter would ultimately end up in the lap of the Supreme Court of the United States, which could overturn the CSC’s decision on federal constitutional law.
Yes, there is a US constitutional Amendment prohibiting segregation-- the 14th. That’s how *Brown *was decided. Whether you agree that the original intent of the 14th was to ban segregation or not, that is the way the SCOTUS now interprets that amendment.
It was introduced before the 13th Amendment and could still be ratified. But since it was introduced BEFORE the 13th Amemndment, would it repeal it? Or would having the 13th Amendment already in effect cause the Corwin Amendment to be unconstitutional?
Similarly, what if an amendment were made giving the higher populous states a third senator in violation of Article V?
Okay. Courts can exercise, and in fact have exercised, the right to review the process by which an amendment is put in place. (E.g., and I don’t have a cite on this, a Federal constitutional amendment has been ratified by, say, 35 states, and 3 states seem likely to ratify, which would make the proposed amendment official. But opponents of the measure turn to one state, where it had been ratified under, say, a Democratic majority in the legislature, since replaced by a Republican majority, and prevail on that legislature to rescind their ratification. The final three states ratify, and someone brings suit to prevent its proclamation as a valid amendment, on the grounds that 3/4 of the states have not in fact ratified it. The courts have every right to hear that case and determine if the rescinding is a valid act.
As for an amendment to a state constitution being itsel;f unconstitutional under the Federal constitution, that is precisely the question decided in Romer v. Evans.
As Saint Cad notes, the only possible circumstance in which an amendment to the Federal constitution might be invalid is if it awarded additional senators to one or some but not all states. (Well, technically, an amendment retroactively prohibiting the importation of slaves prior to 1808 would also fail in the same way, but that’s an amendment I doubt anyone would every attempt to put in place!)