[GHook93]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Please show me where judicial review is applied to new legislation anymore GHOOK? Obviously if it isn't being used, it can't work as intended, can it?

The 13th and 14th amendments were not in the original constitution, but they were applied to Brown v. the Board of Education to shoot down the separate but equal clause.

Here is some recent cases I can remember off hand
Basically any case the comes in front of the supreme court. Take Kumho v. Carmichael ==> on the Daubert test. 1999
State v, Kinney ==> expert witness reliability
Democratic Party v. Indiana ==> challenging the voting ID law of IN
Moore v. VA ==> State law violated 4th amendment! Reversed and remanded
Just to name a few. Judicial review happens when the case is in front of the court.

Thats obviously false on its face.

Actual its not. The US courts (supreme court in general) are to apply the constitution to Federal, State, local and common law. So once its in the constitution that is what needs to be upheld. So the comment that once its in the constitution it can't be unconstitutional is not that off. Of course there can be new constitutional amendments that might be in conflict with the original constitutional amendment or clause (such as the 13th and 14th amendment and the Fugitive Slave Clause), but just because you see an "injustice" (at least in your eyes) doesn't mean something is unconstitutional.

I personally see the Democratic superdelegate system as a grave injustice, but it's not unconstitutional!

If the public demand an amendment be held up to scrutiny of judicial review, and the court takes the case,

DEAD WRONG. the supreme court will never hear a case on political opinion. There has to be a case in controversy and the courts won't and can't change the constitution!

the court CAN rule that an amendment did not follow the prescribed process for ratification if it didn't, they can rule it is contradictory if it is, and they can rule that the amendment no longer applies if the facts support the case.

Name a case that has done that? They have unconstitutionalized Federal, State, Common and local laws, but it has never been don't to a constitutional amendment. The only amendment that has been deemed invalid is the 18th amendment. And if was deemed in valid by an act of Congress, not the courts. Congress has the SOLE power to ratify, amend to create new amendments.

Also, in any jury case, the jury can willingly nullify the law, or precedent of the SC if they so choose and the facts of a case compel them to do so.

If it gets appealed to the Supreme Court, then you don't have a jury, you have a panel of professional judges!