It has become increasingly common for courts in constitutional democracies to invalidate constitutional amendments. Indeed it appears to be the case that the unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine has become a global trend in the domestic constitutional law of states. Courts anchor their use of the doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendment in what they regard as the substantive core of the Constitution. What constitutes the core of the Constitution is sometimes codified and sometimes not, yet in both cases courts rely on their own interpretation of the limits of the amendment power to deny amending actors the right to amend their Constitution. In this paper, I explore alternatives to the extraordinary action of invalidating a constitutional amendment and suggest that there may exist a better path for courts to take instead of invalidating a procedurally-perfect constitutional amendment.