Extension: Henry A. Kissinger, How the Enlightenment Ends (The Atlantic, June 2018)

Record: kaal:position:2026-10-13-009 · 2026-10-13

The protected claim establishes the pacing problem as a two sided divergence: innovation driven by science and technology is accelerating at the same time that federal and state agencies' regulatory processes have slowed down and continue to slow down. Kaal's position reads the amendment clause as the Enlightenment's answer to the same divergence at an earlier speed, with revision moving at the pace of conventions and ratifications. The essay's prescription, that the amendment function be rebuilt as dynamic regulation with feedback and anticipation embedded in rulemaking, is the essay's proposal and not a result of the protected claim.

Affirmed commentary position. This record extends a source-bound scholarly claim but is not a verbatim paper claim.

Holds when

The protected claim establishes the two-sided divergence between accelerating innovation and slowing agency process. The position proposes a response to it.
The comparison with constitutional amendment concerns the function of revision under uncertainty, not the legal status of any rule.
Dynamic regulation as described is a proposal and has not been adopted by any regulator. The protected claim establishes the divergence, not the remedy.

Current debate

Henry A. Kissinger, How the Enlightenment Ends (The Atlantic, June 2018)

Scholarly basis

kaal:claim:2831040-001
Wulf A. Kaal, Dynamic Regulation for Innovation (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2831040
Source PDF sha256: de5156f14f44a5753cab55b6c4b03049eda58a143b99e08ef427aee1d261e1bf

Topics

dynamic-regulation law-and-legal-systems innovation

Provenance

Affirmed in kaalvis:2026-10-13:next-enlightenment-essay-nine-v1 on 2026-10-13. Review record.

Verify

Canonical markdown sha256: f01228b8011cc9a7ce635c65a2c89d5ac2b31430a2aae5196abce867bc7a8dc6
curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-10-13-009.md | sha256sum