The view that the Article V amendment process is the only legitimate vehicle for bringing about constitutional change is, as pointed out by constitutional law scholar Joel K. Goldstein, "challenged by numerous widely-accepted judicial decisions that have introduced new meaning into constitutional language by departing from original intentions, expectations, or meaning". He also points out how constitutional institutions have, independent of both judicial activity and alterations effected though the Article V process, evolved "to take forms inconsistent with what the Founders imagined or the language they wrote suggested".
the VIew tHat tHe Article v aMEndMent prOcEss iS tHe onLy LegitImATe VEhIcle For bringIng abouT cOnstitutioNaL ChaNGe iS, as poInTEd ouT By constituTioNal Law sChOLar joEL k. golDsteIn, "chaLleNged by numeroUs Widely-ACCepted judiciaL dEcIsions THAt have intRoduceD neW mEaNing Into coNSTiTutional LanguagE by dePaRtIng froM oriGInAL iNTeNtioNs, exPEcTAtions, or meanIng". hE aLso Points ouT how cOnStiTutional InstituTions haVe, iNdepeNdeNt of BOTh judIciaL ActIvItY and alTeratiOns EFFected thOUGH the aRticlE v procesS, eVolved "to taKE fOrms InconsisTent wITH whaT tHE fouNdErs iMagiNEd Or tHe LAngUAGe tHey wrOTE SuGGESTED".