So now Proposition 8 just passed and the citizens of California are adding a Constitutional Amendment stating the exact same thing that the unconstitutional law did.

Thus your answer is now wrong.

What CA found unconstitutional in law due to the equal protection clause they are adding as a constitutional amendment which now conflicts with another part of the CA Constitution.

At the end of the day, Scotus power comes from the same location as all power: it’s legitimacy as perceived by the people seen as a whole (the polis). Given that a civil war had just been fought over these issues, only some type of insane freak would have come back and yelled “Dred Scott” once again.

However, this would only apply to a constitution with in the state. I think it’s a very interesting question as to what would happen if Scotus got involved. It’s argued that when the states were accepted into the Union, the Federal government (as a proxy for the other states themselves) accepted them on the condition that they were obligated to be bound by the Federal constitution when it conflicted with the state’s own constitution (Utah is a good example of this). However, the exact parameters of this theory have never been fully explored. For example, given that marriage is traditionally left to the states, I find it unlikely that Scotus would rule any state constitutional change in that regard a violation of the federal constitution. But I could imagine situations (for example, the Commerce clause) where Scotus would rule a validly passed state constitutional amendment federally unconstitutional. OTOH, if there was a federal constitutional amendment that defined marriage in a certain way, it would be an open question as to if and how that would apply to the states via the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.

1) Some constitutions (germany comes to mind, as does our article V with respect to senatorial representation) are explicitly limited in how they may be amended.

Hence, you couldn’t just amend the constitution to give Maine three senators–that would be unconstitutional under article V. Instead, you’d have to amend article V first, and then amend article I.

2) In most other cases, just like statutes, it’s a courtesy to note when you repeal something, but you don’t have to. (see Sixteenth amendment-implicitly overruling Art. I S9 “No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”)

If the two provisions cannot be read together (and you know courts will try to read them consistently), I think we’d presume that the amendment overruled the earlier provision, and then controls.