No existing framework bounds the entrenchment category once formality is dropped

Evidence

This is not to prejudge any effort toward usefully differentiating a more circumscribed category of political entrenchment. It is merely to point out the absence of conceptual resources for doing so in the existing literature on entrenchment. Once we blur the distinction between formal and functional entrenchment, the question of how else the category of political entrenchment might be usefully bounded becomes open. — Daryl Levinson and Benjamin I. Sachs, Political Entrenchment and Public Law, 503

Categorization

• QUESTION: The reader’s core question is precisely how to bound and differentiate durable from disposable ideologies; this passage names the open problem.
• XREF: connects to: Political entrenchment is coextensive with history’s influence if defined by dead-hand sway — Daryl Levinson and Benjamin I. Sachs, Political Entrenchment and Public Law, 502; Formal and functional entrenchment do not differ in harm or benefit; Political entrenchment means making political change more difficult than it otherwise would be — Daryl Levinson and Benjamin I. Sachs, Political Entrenchment and Public Law, 47 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Blocking formal entrenchment hydraulically increases functional substitutes #qualifies (0.85) — Daryl Levinson and Benjamin I. Sachs, Political Entrenchment and Public Law, 431
• Open-ended theories inviting unlimited added conditions become unfalsifiable and impractical #corroborates (0.75)