The power of judicial review, the ability of courts to declare laws unconstitutional, is a cornerstone of the American legal system. But what happens when that power meets the ultimate expression of popular sovereignty: constitutional amendments? The question of “Does Judicial Review Apply To Amendments” is a complex one, sparking debate among legal scholars and historians alike. The short answer is generally no, but the nuances are significant and depend on the specific amendment and the grounds for challenge.
The Prevailing View Amendments Stand Apart
The general consensus is that judicial review does *not* extend to the validity of a properly ratified constitutional amendment. This stems from the understanding that the amendment process, as outlined in Article V of the Constitution, represents the direct will of the people expressed through a supermajority of states. This process is considered a fundamental act of popular sovereignty, placing amendments above the ordinary legislative process that is typically subject to judicial review. The rationale is that if an amendment is properly proposed and ratified according to Article V, it is the supreme law of the land and beyond the reach of judicial intervention on procedural grounds.
However, this isn’t a completely settled area. Some legal scholars argue that even amendments could be subject to judicial review under very specific circumstances. These hypothetical scenarios often involve:
- Procedural flaws so egregious that they undermine the legitimacy of the ratification process.
- Violations of fundamental principles of republican government that are considered inherent limitations on the amending power.
For example, it has been debated whether an amendment could abolish the Senate, or eliminate judicial review itself. Such an amendment might be challenged on the grounds that it fundamentally alters the structure of the government in a way that the framers did not intend.
Despite these theoretical possibilities, the Supreme Court has never struck down a constitutional amendment. The bar for such a challenge would be exceptionally high, requiring a demonstration that the amendment process was so flawed or the amendment itself so destructive of fundamental principles that it falls outside the boundaries of legitimate constitutional change. The table below illustrates the different perspective on amending powers:
| Viewpoint | Description |
|---|---|
| Prevailing View | Amendments are generally immune from judicial review if ratified properly. |
| Minority View | Amendments might be reviewable if process is flawed, or they destroy fundamental principles. |
To delve deeper into the intricacies of judicial review and the amendment process, consult the Constitution of the United States: Analysis and Interpretation, a comprehensive legal resource published by the U.S. Government Printing Office.