I have an essay at Law and Liberty today on constitutional amendments. Law and Liberty has a terrific series called “Liberty Forum” that includes an essay and several responses. My essay today is a response to Professors John McGinnis and Michael Rappoport, who made an originalist case for more amendments. The response draws on work Ben Kleinerman and I did several years ago on how Federalist 49’s case for constitutional veneration has been misunderstood to make the Constitution untouchable. Continue reading The Case for Constitutional Amendments
David Pozen and Thomas Schmidt of Columbia Law School have produced a groundbreaking and—in all the intriguing ways—unsettling study of the constitutional amendment process elucidated in Article V. After reading the abstract, I went into it expecting to disagree. I walked away convinced of their underlying analysis. I’m still ruminating on some of their conclusions. Pozen and Schmidt point out multiple ambiguities in the text of Article V. Does a Congressional amendment resolution require presidential presentment, for example? Does the margin required for passage in Congress need to be achieved in each chamber or in the aggregate? Does Article V’s reference to … Continue reading Is Everything We Think About Article V Wrong?