Final answer:
The Supreme Court cannot rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional via judicial review, as amendments become part of the Constitution upon proper ratification. Judicial review allows the Court to decide the constitutionality of laws and executive actions, but does not apply to constitutional amendments themselves.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question at hand addresses whether the Supreme Court can rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional through judicial review. It is inherently contradictory for an amendment to the Constitution, which is an express alteration or addition to the document itself, to be declared unconstitutional because it becomes a part of the Constitution once properly ratified. The role of the Supreme Court through judicial review, as established by Marbury v. Madison, is to interpret the Constitution and the validity of laws and executive actions that are challenged based on constitutional grounds. However, when it comes to duly ratified constitutional amendments, these generally cannot be subject to judicial review because they are considered the supreme law of the land.
In terms of actions and laws, the Supreme Court does have the authority to review and, if necessary, strike down federal or state laws and executive actions it finds to be unconstitutional. This process of judicial review is a critical function of the judiciary and effectively allows the Court to impact the interpretation and evolution of the Constitution by addressing the constitutionality of legislation and government actions that are brought before it.