Hostname: page-component-66644f4456-tnr8b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-13T07:19:32.468Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a Theory of Constitutional Amendment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Donald S. Lutz
Donald S. Lutz
Affiliation:
University of Houston
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Constitutional design proceeds under the assumption that institutions have predictable consequences, but modern political science has not pursued the empirical verification of these predicted consequences with much vigor. I shall attempt to link the theoretical premises underlying one important aspect of constitutional design, the amendment process, with the empirical patterns revealed by a systematic, comparative study of constitutions. An examination of all amendments in the 50 American states since 1776 reveals patterns that are then confirmed using data from 32 national constitutions. The interaction of the two key variables affecting amendment rate can be described by an equation that generates predicted amendment rates close to those found in the cross-national empirical analysis. A constitution's length measured in number of words, the difficulty of an amendment process, and the rate of amendment turn out to have interlocking consequences that illuminate principles of constitutional design.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 88 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 355 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, Willi Paul. 1980. The First American Constitutions. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Antieu, Chester James. 1982. Constitutional Construction. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James, and Tulloch, Gordon. 1965. the Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 1986. Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lutz, Donald S. 1980. Popular Consent and Popular Control: Whig Political Theory in the Early State Constitutions. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Lutz, Donald S. 1988. The Origins of American Constitutionalism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Maarseveen, Henc van, and Tang, Ger van der. 1978. Written Constitutions: A Computerized Comparative Study. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana.Google Scholar
McWhinney, Edward. 1956. Judicial Review in the English-Speaking World. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Edmund S. 1988. Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Vincent. 1987. The Political Theory of the Compound Republic. 2nd. ed.Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reform In Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rae, Douglas W. 1967. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S., and Carey, John M.. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturm, Albert L. 1970. Thirty Years of State Constitution-Making: 1938–1968. New York: National Municipal League.Google Scholar
Sturm, Albert L. 1982. “The Development of American State Constitutions.” Publius 12:64–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vile, John R. 1992. The Constitutional Amending Process in American Political Thought. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.