There is only one way to CHANGE the Constitution

[dickthegrouch]

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified.

Until ALL that happens, the Courts should be ruling summarily against all the obviously unconstitutional executive orders, signing statements, and GOP-enabled BS.

[pwb]

1. The strict Constitutionalists always seem to find a way

Like mail in ballots, they pivoted to Fed x and a guy on a bicycle being equivalent to the U S Postal Service.

[walkingman]

2. If no one hold them accountable for constitutional violations then it effectively doesn't matter.

The lower courts seem to be doing their jobs, depending on the circuit, but in the Thomas and Alito circuit they seem to simply ignore it. And we all know that SCOTUS is political full stop.

[Ms. Toad]

3. None of the cases seem to amend the constitution.

And it is the supreme courts job to interpret the constitution. The cases seem to interpret the constitution in ways counter to its own existing interpretations, or where the supreme court has not yet ruled on the interpretation.

We seriously need better civics education in this country. (Not you, specifically - but pretty much across the board.)

[dickthegrouch]

4. It was deemed necessary to amend the constitution to permit

Women and abducted Africans subsequently portrayed as slaves to vote.
There is precedent for requiring amendments.
The latest fad unsupported within the constitution is by definition unconstitutional.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the cabal and start requiring adherence to existing law.

[LeftInTX]

5. Amy Coney Barrett said, "That's not textual"

My jaw kinda dropped. It was the intention, but it's not written that way in the constitution!