if a proposed amendment violates the constitution, should the supreme court be able to block it's ratification? Explain.

No.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a7.html

Yes, if a proposed amendment violates the constitution, the Supreme Court should be able to block its ratification. The reason for this lies in the concept of judicial review, which is the power of the courts, including the Supreme Court, to interpret the constitutionality of laws and acts.

In the United States, the Constitution is considered the supreme law of the land, and any law or action that conflicts with it can be declared unconstitutional. The role of the Supreme Court is to ensure that the constitution is upheld and interpreted correctly. If the proposed amendment directly contradicts or violates the existing provisions of the Constitution, it would be impliedly inconsistent with the fundamental principles and rights protected by the Constitution.

When a proposed amendment is presented, it must go through the constitutional ratification process, which typically involves approval by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. As part of this process, it is possible for the Supreme Court to intervene and declare the amendment unconstitutional, effectively blocking its ratification.

The Supreme Court's power to limit or block the ratification of an amendment helps to maintain the integrity of the Constitution and ensures that amendments are consistent with the principles and values enshrined within it. It acts as a safeguard against attempts to undermine the fundamental rights and protections guaranteed by the Constitution.