Judicial Review, Charter Politics, and Federalism in Canada -- The American Influences
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The political and judicial revolution that has taken place in Canada after the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 has been usually interpreted in the context of the effects it had on the relationship between the legislative and judicial powers, and increased capacity of individuals to protect their rights by using the strengthened judicial review. Even when this process is being criticized, that is usually done in the context of the legislature-judiciary dichotomy and the general philosophical and political musings about the proper balance between the two branches of government in a democratic society.The aim of this paper is to put this discussion more squarely in the context of the theory and practice of federalism in Canada, in a comparative American perspective. More specifically, it argues that the adoption of the Charter of Rights influenced Canadian federalism in the similar way the (in) famous incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the 14th amendment changed the dynamic of American federalism. In both cases the discourse of individual rights and constitutional freedoms was used for the purposes of political centralization and nation-building. And in both cases the documents purporting to “protect” rights (the Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights) were employed as a means of abridging the legislative powers of the sub-national governments (although in Canada this centralizing process was arguably less drastic than in the USA).The Canadian Charter functioned as a legal tool by which judicial review as a way of centralizing power was put in motion. In emulation of the American 14th amendment and commerce clause jurisprudence the Charter had given to the coalition of federal politicians, bureaucrats, rights experts and litigating organizations an explicit authorization for using the judicial process as a way of transforming the unpopular policy positions into the minority “rights” claims. This transformation works by removing some contentious policy issues from democratic debates, especially in the areas of provincial jurisdiction such as language, education health care, and so on.This process is facilitated by the close links between the American and Canadian prevailing legal orthodoxies (“living Constitutions” and the “Living tree” doctrines) reflected in the overwhelming acceptance of the “substantive due process” guarantees as a way of narrowing the discretion of legislatures, especially the sub-national ones, and giving to the courts a much larger powers in shaping the political outcomes.A special feature of Canadian centralization by the Charter, which is not prominent in the American case is federal government’s funding and aiding a wide network of court party interests – civil rights, minority, health care and other lobby groups, that use the Charter mechanisms to advance their particular interests wrapped up into the Charter broad and open-ended language as “individual rights”, and serve as a proxy for the federalization of political issues and consequent retrenchment of provincial rights and autonomy vis a vis federal government.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,020 | 0,016 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».