The work under review, by Yale Law School's Jack Balkin, sets forth a theory of constitutional interpretation reconciling originalism with living constitutionalism. It claims that the United States Constitution is best comprehended as an enabling framework for a project of governance, which successive generations must build out over time. Using rules, standards, principles and silences as distinctive textual devices, the original framers effected an allocation not only of constraint, but of delegation. Ascertaining the balance of the allocation calls for originalist methods, while making constructional choices within its bounds commits one to living constitutionalism. Construction is said to be a task shared by the courts, political branches and ordinary citizens, underwritten and legitimated by a deep political and cultural attachment to the Constitution. This essay considers the utility of the theory in Australia. Drawing on Professor Balkin's ideas, it engages with a current debate about how to understand the legitimacy of the Engineers' Case, and, with reference to Roach v Electoral Commissioner and Rowe v Electoral Commissioner, explores the under-theorised question of how ordinary statutes can affect constitutional meaning.