6 question of judicial review of written constitution. He described two groups—one group which upheld, and the other, which criticized the Canadian Charter of Rights—he called them the ‘boosters’ and the ‘bashers’. For the ‘boosters’, the rigidity of the constitution ‘bashers’, was this what was made one of it the valuable; chief ills for of a written constitution. The author makes a convincing case of how this constitutionalism that enables an approach to is authoritative and both flexible. He says that the protection of rights must be left to the traditional institutional mechanism, which is necessarily the unelected judiciary. According to Gwyer, C.J., a broad and liberal spirit should inspire those whose duty is to interpret the constitution; but this does not imply that they are free to stretch or pervert the language of the enactment in the interests of any legal or constitutional theory, or even for the purposes of supplying omissions or of correcting supposed errors. A Federal derogate Court from, will its not position; strengthen, if it but seeks only to do