Is a constitutional amendment different than a federal law when it comes to how it’s treated by the SCOTUS?

Yes, but it’s subtle. The mandate of SCOTUS is a check against the other branches of the government to ensure they’re following the Constitution. By passing a Constitutional Amendment, it essentially makes the contents of such inherently constitutional. A Federal law could be (and has been) struck down as being unconstitutional.

I see. I’m probably jumping the gun here, but if such a federal law were to be passed is there something in the Constitution that would disallow it? I suppose it depends on the exact wording and so on?

Generally speaking, a Federal law would only be struck down if its intent or wording specifically violates a clause in the Constitution or its Amendments. So, it really depends on how its worded or what its intent is. I think it's pretty clear that Congress has the Constitutional authority to pass environmental regulations and could extend the EPA's mandates or legislatively codify EPA regulations such that they become law, because they have to do primarily with things which are commerce across state lines and national borders (e.g. where energy originates and where its expended are across borders).

Essentially the same justification for why Congress could create the EPA in the first place allows them to codify any regulations as law or to extend the EPA mandate. What cannot happen is the EPA unilaterally deciding to overreach its mandate, because its taking actions with the force of law but without any check/balance. The Constitution is quite clear that laws are the purview of the Legislative, not the Executive, and the EPA is a function of the Executive.

Yes. A constitutional amendment is constitutional by definition. It’s the very thing SCOTUS is tasked to protect.

Amendments and laws are the same thing, so no. The Constitution can refer to the original laws, or the collection of original laws plus all the new ones.

When Congress passes a law, the law (sometimes referred to as the Constitution) gets amended, hence it is also referred to as an amendment.

Edit: ignore this comment, my information was incorrect!

This is incorrect, at least in the US. A Constitutional Amendment requires the affirmative consent of 3/4s of the states for ratification, it cannot be done unilaterally by the US Congress. The Federal laws are considered the lesser laws and the Constitution the highest law.

There is a big big difference legally in the US between an Amendment and something in the USC

Thanks, got to learn something new today.

You’re conflating constitutional amendments with amendments to congressional bills. They’re very different things.

So you want for women to have their basic rights for us to go through a constitutional amendment path? Interesting. This feels like fascism through paperwork.

You can say "I don't like X". You don't have to say every is "Fascism". It's ok just to be upset and not like something.

Fascism by the way would be rule by fiat - eg a King or a Dictator can just declare new law: "I declare all Hamburgers shall now be served with bacon and anyone who fails to do shall be executed".

Writing down laws and having a neutral body interpret them is a really important part of fair forms of Government (but not unique to Democracy). There is no defense to a fiat in a Dictatorship but that is a defense in eg Democracy. The publishing, disseminating and authority of rules is the basis of a fair form of government.

I mean, this is a literal historical lesson.

Fascism mixed with bureaucracy is extremely powerful and extremely difficult to fight.

Hopefully this article can shed some light on it for you.

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/opinion/columnists/290919/bu...

This is what I view is happening in the US.

Single dictators don’t mean fascism. That’s an extremely simplistic and playground view on fascism. Heck, single dictators are much easier to combat than democratic & bureaucratic fascism.

This isn't some kind of new legislative process. This has literally been the law of the land since the constitution where it's described.

And I'm sorry but I'm going to reject the opinion column of a small newspaper as a source.

You're right in that Fascism is not just composed of single dictators but you are confusing the Rule of Law with beaucracy. Having a high court and requiring laws to be explicit is not "Fascism", it is literally the basis of the legal system.

are you under the impression that Germany didn’t have a “rule of law” when nazis were in power then?

A “rule of law” is a tool that can be used for evil. I’m not sure why we’re being blind to this?

Where is this neutral body? Half of the court was explicitly groomed to take a partisan stance. They even have the ability to choose their own cases, plus a shadow docket.

Having a body made up of two opposing sides is generally how we build neutral bodies.

The liberal justices are not a beacon of neutrality - they lean towards liberal policies and expansionist interpretations the same way the conservative justices lean towards conservative policies and paring down the Fed.

I did not write anything about what I want or do not want.

They could rule the law to be unconstitutional. And they would do just that.

It is not at all obvious that this is true. I think it's highly unlikely given that the federal government has almost unrestricted ability to pass laws about personal rights (either strictly or in practice, see the federal drinking age of 21, smoking, etc).

Even if it was, there's no reason not to test it.

I agree that it’s not obvious that such a law would actually be unconstitutional. I just think this court has become an unapologetically partisan body.

It’s not unrestricted. For example, drinking age is not federally set for the states.

But states that don’t set their drinking age to 21 lose 8% of their highway funding.

By now, every state is in compliance, but some held out for years, and they could decide to change it in the future and forfeit the money.