Abstract
Constitutions can be seen either as defensive mechanisms for protecting liberty, as suggested by the metaphor of entrenchment, or as weapons to eliminate injustice, as suggested by the metaphor of striking down unconstitutional legislation. In his statement on originalism in support of then-Judge Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States, Lawrence Solum eloquently defends the former, defensive view, and argues that originalist interpretation is more consonant with it than living constitutionalism. This comment supports Professor Solum’s position by reference to some Canadian cases in which living constitutionalism could have been, has arguably been, or may well become a source of danger to the rights and liberties of citizens.
