Las claúsulas notwithstanding y override del constitucionalismo canadiense
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial, el modelo de democracia constitucional, en virtud del cual, la última palabra acerca de la constitucionalidad de las leyes no podrá recaer ya en el Parlamento, sino en el denominado poder contramayoritario, se ha impuesto en gran parte de los Estados constitucionales, no sólo de Europa, sino del resto del mundo. Incluso, Estados tradicionalmente basados en el principio de supremacía del Parlamento se han visto arrastrados por dicha tendencia, en gran parte por la repercusión que internacionalmente ha tenido el Convenio Europeo y su Tribunal, y así, al amparo de la aprobación de las correspondientes Cartas de Derechos y Libertades, han otorgado a los Tribunales de Justicia la facultad de controlar las leyes del Parlamento. Así pues, puede afirmarse que el viejo modelo de la judicial review que se iniciara a comienzos del siglo XIX en Estados Unidos, parece haber triunfado, con versiones más o menos corregidas del mismo. Tal paradigma, sin embargo, encuentra algunas excepciones aún e, incluso, está siendo objeto de revisión, postulándose, no ya, un retorno a la supremacía del legislador, pero sí al menos el desarrollo de fórmulas débiles de control de constitucionalidad (weak-form judicial review). El ejemplo más característico de estas formas débiles lo encontramos en el sistema constitucional canadiense a través de las cláusulas notwithstanding y override que incorpora la Carta de Derechos. Su origen y, en mayor manera, su evolución pueden ser una interesante experiencia para nuestro propio sistema constitucional.After World War II, the model of constitutional democracy, under which, the last word on the constitutionality of laws can´t be decided by the Parliament, but by the countermajoritarian power, has prevailed in much of the constitutional States. It has happened not only in Europe, also around the World. Even, States traditionally based on the principle of supremacy of Parliament have been drawn by this trend, perhaps by the international impact of the European Convention and its Court. So, under the approval of the Charters of rights and Freedoms, they have given the courts the power to control acts of Parliament. Therefore it can be argued that the old model of judicial review that began in the early nineteenth century in US seems to have succeeded, with more or less corrected versions of it. This paradigm, however, still finds some exceptions, and even is being reviewed, postulating, not a return to the supremacy of the legislature, but at least the development of weak forms of judicial review. The most characteristic example of these weak forms can be found in the Canadian constitutional system through the notwithstanding and override clauses which the Charter of Rights incorporates. Its origin and, more so, its evolution can be an interesting experience for our own constitutional system
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".