Accessibility navigation

More v Roper: a comment on Lawrence Solum’s defence of originalism

Sirota, L. (2017) More v Roper: a comment on Lawrence Solum’s defence of originalism. DPCE Online, 31 (3). ISSN 2037-6677

Text (Open Access) - Published Version
· Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.


It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Official URL:


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.

Item Type:Article
Divisions:Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Law
ID Code:104111


Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation