Essay by Brannon P. Denning and John R. Vile
David Strauss recently argued that constitutional amendments are irrelevant, in the sense that American constitutional law would look very much like it does today, even if the Constitution had been ratified without a formal amendment mechanism like that found in Article V. We argue that Professor Strauss's main claims—that amendments are often neither necessary nor sufficient for producing constitutional change—while true, do not support his irrelevancy thesis. Moreover, we argue that the few benefits of formal constitutional amendments that he does concede are unduly minimized, and that he has overlooked several other benefits of formal constitutional amendments, which we describe.
About the Author
Brannon P. Denning. Assistant Professor of Law, Southern Illinois University School of Law. B.A., University of the South; J.D., University of Tennessee; LL.M., Yale University.
John R. Vile. Chair, Department of Political Science, Middle Tennessee State University. B.A., College of William and Mary; Ph.D., University of Virginia.
Citation
77 Tul. L. Rev. 247 (2002)