The substantive limits imposed, not merely procedural, constitutional reforms can be considered an aggravated case of the tension between democracy and constitutionalism. This paper shows that these limits are now a global trend of contemporary constitutionalism. Based on a comparative analysis, we present evidence and arguments that contradict the thesis of Melissa Schwartzberg, under which the substantive limits are not consistent with democratic ideals. However, the same test to account for the uncertainty of the content of these limits and the extraordinary discretion of the judiciary to interpret them. In conclusion, we present a thesis about the role of citizens in the defense of the constitution based on a reading majority democracy.