La législature québécoise peut-elle implanter un système complet d'initiative et de référendum ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the author asks himself whether it would be permissible for the Quebec Legislature to implement a full and complete initiative and referendum scheme, thereby giving to the people the means to enact their own laws. And the answer brought about is in the affirmative. The author reaches that conclusion, first, by looking at the concepts of sovereignty in the state, legislative supremacy and parliamentary sovereignty. The second step is related to the analysis of the power attributed to the Legislature to modify its own constitution. The author assumes that this large power of legislation coupled with the principle of legislative supremacy should be sufficient to make a court of justice sustain the constitutional validity of the legislative implementation of a complete initiative and referendum process. But some exceptions are made to that large and supreme legislative power. The « Office of Lieutenant Governor », the idea of making the Legislature the sole legislative organ in the state, the principles of representative democracy and responsible government, and the impossibility of binding the Legislature's future course of action are among the exceptions discussed in this article. Finally, the author urges the reader to take a new look at the case-law on the subject keeping in mind that traditonal values of government are not stuck in concrete: The B.N.A. Act , has it been recognized, has to keep up with today's reality. Direct democracy may be part of this reality.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".