scshunt

As far as I can tell, that wasn't the thrust of Scalia's opinion. He was saying that the Court should not have heard the case because there was no controversy: the US executive agreed with the lower court's opinion and as such there was no sense in making an appeal when the parties agreed. Since there was no controversy, it was outside the bounds of the SCOTUS. I don't think he meant that the SCOTUS couldn't ever decide this case, but that in this particular instance, the issue had already been settled elsewhere and so should not have come before the SCOTUS.

What are the steps that such a motion for a constitutional amendment would have to take to get past the House of Representatives? Do you need more support than just the 2/3rds required to adopt it? If so, why?