It the state law violates the federal Constitution, it will be struck down.

Thus, what this whole Prop 8 thing is about now is whether or not there is some federal right (fishing on Sundays) that is being taken away by the new California law.

There are many more side issues, but this is the heart of the matter. How's that?

The real constitutional test comes up when the courts look at the amendment in light of the federal Constitution. Both state courts and federal courts can undertake this kind of analysis. What happens here is that the court will look at the new law (as interpreted) and ask whether that new law would violate the federal Constitution.

(cont)

If you get past the procedural hurdles, then the judges need to figure out how to interpret the new amendment. This is where a lot of amendments lose their teeth. If the new amendment is vague or poorly written, it will get gutted.

If it conflicts with an existing constitutional provision, this is where the first "constitutionality" question comes up. Theoretically, the court could find that one right is simply superior to another. Consider this example: The CA Const. has always provided that you have the right to fish on Sunday. A new amendment says, you can't fish on weekends.

(cont)

First, let's distinguish between "laws" and amendments to constitutions. They are two different things. Laws must conform to the requirements of the constitution, whereas amendments can change the constitution itself.

As dcase suggests, you next need to distinguish between state constitutions and The Constitution. When dealing with an amendment to a state constitution, you first look at the amendment to determined if its proponents followed all of the right procedures required by state law — correct number of signatures, voting certifications, etc. If not, it’s struck down on procedural grounds.

(cont)