The Charter’s Legislative Override: Feat or Figment of the Constitutional Imagination?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers a pessimistic view of section 33 's place in the Charter's structural framework. It begins by showing how a mechanism that allows legislatures to override constitutionally protected rights attained an aspirational role in the scheme of the Charter. According!y, the first section of the paper explains the override's transformation from an ultimatum that was issued in the course of tense political negotiations, into a triumph of the constitutional imagination.The next sections explore the gap between the idea and reality of the override. The Charter may represent the middle ground, but that ground has moved further from the midpoint than Canadians are willing to admit. As the discussion explains, legislative authority cannot prevail in the contest between competing supremacies under the Charter. Section 33 grants legislatures a power that cannot legitimately be exercised against the Charter's entitlements or the judiciary's power of review. In light of that conclusion, the final part of the paper considers the dormant override's influence on the psychology of institutional relations.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".