Charter Interpretation, Judicial Review and a Community's Constitutional Morality: Responding to Natalie Stoljar on Wil Waluchow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Natalie Stoljar’s paper, ‘Waluchow on Moral Opinions and Moral Commitments’ she raises two objections to W.J. Waluchow’s common law theory of charter interpretation. In this paper I aim both to provide a brief overview of Waluchow’s theory of charter interpretation and to respond to the challenges advanced by Stoljar in her article. In my paper I have called the two main criticisms Stoljar presents the ‘epistemic worry’ and the ‘methodological worry’. Discussing and addressing these worries, I believe, reveals a confusion on the part of Stoljar about Waluchow’s theory. Namely, I argue that Stoljar misunderstands what Waluchow intends to accomplish in distinguishing between moral opinions and moral commitments. As well, I con- tend that she makes assumptions about the methodology involved in Waluchow’s theory of charter interpretation that are precipitate and ultimately based on misunderstandings. In replying to Stoljar, I hope I have both clarified Waluchow’s theory and, in doing so, added strength to his claim that we can reconcile judicial review with democracy.Resumen:En su artículo intitulado “Waluchow on Moral Opinions and Moral Commitments”, Natalie Stolar presenta dos objeciones a la postura de W.J. Waluchow y su teoría del “common law” sobre la interpretación de cartas constitucionales. En mi artículo, intento proporcionar un resumen breve de la teoría de Waluchow sobre la interpretación de cartas constitucionales y responder a las críticas desarrolladas por Stoljar. Voy a denominar las críticas que presentar Stoljar como la “preocupación epistémica” y la “preocupación metodológica”. Al discutir y atender estas preocupaciones, voy a concluir que existe una confusión de la teoría de Waluchow por parte de Stoljar. Principalmente, mi argumento es que existe un malentendido en lo que pretende conseguir Waluchow con su distinción entre “opiniones morales” y “compromisos morales”. Asimismo, sostengo que Stoljar parte de ciertas suposiciones sobre la metodología de la teoría de Waluchow que son precipitadas. Al responder a Stoljar, espero esclarecer la teoría de Waluchow y aportar elementos para fortalecer su tesis de que podemos reconciliar el “judicial review” con la democracia
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 | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".