I am curious that, when the constitution is amended, can the Supreme Court reject the amendment via the judicial review process by citing the amendment is unconstitutional and says the negation (by the correct semantic representation) of the amendment is now in the Constitution?
If can't, does it mean the process of amending constitution is a power that is not governed by the constitution and so out of the reach of the Supreme Court decision. As a direct result, the Supreme Court justice can only interpret the amendment via the precedent constructed by how the people who amend the constitution interpret, and so the judicial review process cannot interpret law in the sense of "creating precedent".
If can, does it mean the current, existing US citizen does not have the ultimate interpretation about Constitution since theoretically the justice can reject and negate it by creating a precedent vacuously? (In a philosophical sense, I assume a Constitutional Amendment is not decided (logical consequence) by the existing Constitution, and so there must be someone to create the precedent to decide how to use the law, which can be done by the judicial review by saying the amendment is unconstitutional is vacuously True by the pure definition of "not a logical consequence")
I know it's a game of words and extremely like some form of Godel's Incompleteness proof but the self-reference property of judicial review and strong arithmetic property of principle of precedent at least in a logical sense may have unexpected behavior.