The_Guruburu saidFrom what I understand, the amendment process, as you noted, would be subject to constitutionality concerns. The court's role is to compare a (proposed) law against the Constitution and see if it passes muster (I.e., Constitutional interpretation). Once the Constitution itself has changed, the amendment becomes part of what the courts use to interpret other laws. So yes, the Constitution can't invalidate itself and neither SCOTUS nor any other court can pull up an older version of the Constitution to deem a new amendment unconstitutional..
Actually, what I bolded there was my concern. Particularly, what I underlined I'd be interested in seeing a proper citation if you know of one to provide.
Yesterday I'd found this on interpretation http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx what seems to me to imply but not explicitly state the review might be from that this:
"Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit."
What I would like to see if it exists is a citation from a good source which says definitively whether or not the court may review to test for constitutional muster before enactment an amendment to the US Constitution proposed in order to negate a prior Supreme Court ruling.
Regarding the court's role in Constitutional interpretation, see Marbury v. Madison (the first U.S. Supreme Court case to apply the principle of "judicial review" -- the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution.)
As to your second concern:
At the bottom of the page you cited reads:
When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
Here's a paper written by a Con law professor at U. of St. Thomas that addresses your very question: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1104529. Some useful tidbits from it:
The Supreme Court is the highest federal court, to be sure. And indeed, it is now widely accepted (by nearly everyone except me) that the Court’s decisions are binding on the other branches of government. But that doesn’t make it right for the Supreme Court to “overrule” the Thirteenth or Fourteenth amendment! The justices don’t legitimately, rightfully have the power to do such a thing! It would be a violation of the Constitution, of their sworn oaths to be bound by it, for the justices to “strike down” the plain text of a constitutional amendment!
Another law prof. at of U. of Missouri Kansas City has a page that goes into the details of judicial review and Constitutional amendments:
Because any amendment can be blocked by a mere thirteen states withholding approval (in either of their two houses), amendments don't come easy...The very difficulty of amending the Constitution greatly increases the importance of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution, because reversal of the Court's decision by amendment is unlikely except in cases when the public's disagreement is intense and close to unanimous.
I don't have the wherewithal to go through every single SCOTUS decision where the Court basically says "if you don't like it, change the Constitution," but that has been the precedent it set for itself since Marbury v. Madison
I could see someone bringing a Constitutional challenge to an amendment if it exceeded Congress' power beyond what Article I grants, unless of course the Amendment is expanding its scope of power. I imagine it's possible that if Congress were to amend the Constitution in a way that completely undermines the spirit of the law, say reinstate slavery or disenfranchise women, then the court could again point to other parts of the Constitution that are contrary, or as a last resort, appeal to the "spirit of the law", tradition, civilization, or any combination of the three.
Again, it goes back to what the actual power of the court is. Although we use the language "review", courts don't go about looking for laws to review--someone must bring an issue before the court, and that someone must have standing (i.e., past or impending harm due to the law). If no one complains or on one can bring about a claim, the court can't do anything. Most cases are based on the fact that some statute is violating the Constitution. If part of the Constitution itself is the issue, it would have to conflict with another part of the Constitution, and then it would be up to the politics of the Justices to decide how best to rule