Constitutional amendment may be no harder than founding enactment.

Evidence

A different “ordinary politics” baseline is set by the degree of difficulty of creating the status quo. Under this standard, entrenchment means that a political arrangement is now more difficult to change than it was to create in the first place. On this definition, it is no longer clear that the U.S. Constitution should count as entrenched, because it is not obvious that the supermajoritarian procedures required for amendment are a higher hurdle than the supermajoritarian procedures the Constitution had to overcome in the course of its initial enactment. — Daryl Levinson and Benjamin I. Sachs, Political Entrenchment and Public Law, 65

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Defines the ‘relative difficulty’ baseline for entrenchment, contrasting with the absolute majority-will baseline.
  • XREF: connects to: Courts may not amend a statute however desirable policy change may be — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1059; Constitutional entrenchment is real only where not subject to judicial or interpretive change — Daryl Levinson and Benjamin I. Sachs, Political Entrenchment and Public Law, 464; Political barriers can entrench laws as effectively as formal constitutional impediments do. — Daryl Levinson and Benjamin I. Sachs, Political Entrenchment and Public Law, 184 (+1 more)

Broader Connections