But if the amendment passed, there would be no more Supreme Court.Orlion wrote:My main point is the Supreme Court does not need to change the Constitution, just interpret it. All ready, constitutional meanings are muddled by different methods of viewing the Constitution, and one might say, "Well, if we go by the Founder's intent (and surely they were all homogeneous in their intent ), the Article was only meant to give an out in the early days of the government. Now that the government has been established and ensconced, blah blah blah"
As a result, I find it hard to use the Constitution as "authoritative legal scripture" and more as a framework or foundation.
But it would never get that far. Once word got out, martial law would be declared and the state governments would cease to exist. There might be local prefectures set up with the intent of keeping people in line, but one way or the other, it'd be the end of the country.