Final answer:
The view that a decided case can only be changed by amending the Constitution is not complete. Judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court can also effect change in the application of the Constitution.
The formal amendment process is difficult, but the courts play a significant role in evolving its understanding over time.
Step-by-step explanation:
The notion that once a case is decided the only thing that can change it is amending the Constitution itself is not entirely accurate. While prominent 19th-century legal scholar Joseph Story believed in a fixed interpretation of the Constitution, the reality of constitutional interpretation has been more fluid.
This is largely due to the role of judges and the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution, which can have an impact or even change its application without a formal amendment.
The process of amending the Constitution is indeed a formal mechanism for change, requiring substantial consensus from both Congress and state legislatures.
However, judicial interpretation by the nation's courts, as seen in canonical cases such as Marbury v. Madison, has led to informal amendments of the Constitution. The courts, particularly the Supreme Court, through their rulings, effectively shape the understanding and application of constitutional principles over time.
The ability of courts to interpret the Constitution means that they can effectively 'amend' it as society evolves, thereby ensuring that the Constitution remains a living document for more than 225 years.
Although it is difficult to amend the Constitution formally, interpretations of its text have allowed for adaptations to changing societal norms and needs without altering the document's wording.