[Mightymouser]

No, it cannot. There is no framework in place under any branch of government to rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional; the Judiciary has the power only to interpret the constitution as written. In fact the power of Judiciary Review, which is what the SCOUS uses to invalidate laws it finds unconstitutional comes not directly from the Constitution itself, but is a power the Judiciary derived from itself in Marbury v. Madison. Chief Justice Marshall defined the power to be implied by his interpretation of the reading of Article 3 and the Supremacy Clause of Article 4, which holds the Constitution as the 'Supreme Law'.

No clause in any part of the constitution, or any jurisprudence developed thereafter, provides a means for an amendment to be found unconstitutional.

A perfect example of this is prohibition; the 18th Amendment stripped away individual rights, and the 21st repealed that amendment (which is the only way to overturn it) and gave the power to regulate 'intoxicating liquors' to the states.

If an Amendment was proposed, and passed, which amended Article 2 such that Presidents served for life and had supreme authority over government such would then be the law of the land. The founders entrusted the people with the responsibility to ensure that such a thing never happened and that all Amendments to the Constitution were made in the benefit of all.


Edit to add: I'm having a bit of trouble following your thought process, but let me state; the preamble of the Constitution is widely recognized to hold no legal authority what-so-ever, it is sometimes used to help the judiciary better understand other parts of the Constitution, but only to the same degree that other contemporary writings by the founders and others are used to the same effect. The Constitution is the 'Supreme Law', and all powers given to the Federal Government come solely from it, there are areas of wide differences in interpretation (the 2nd Amendment is a good example of such), but the text is the only source of Federal Power. Thus 'the understood spirit' of the text is meaningless if there is not actual text to support said 'spirit'.



Second edit; because every time I read this thread it jumps out at me. Ergot is a type of fungus, ergo is a Latin phrase meaning hence or therefore.