Abstract

The conventional view of article V is that it leaves the task of resolving amendment process issues entirely to Congress. In this Article, Professor Dellinger contends that judicial abstentation from involvement in amendment process disputes is dictated neither by the text of article V nor by actual congressional practice nor by the weight of relevent precedent and that it is subversive of the clarity and regularity essential to legitimate constitutional change. Professor Dellinger develops a model of judicial review of amendment process issues as an alternative to the orthodox vision and applies this model to several contemporary amendment process controversies.