The U.S. Constitution and comparative constitutional law : texts, cases, and materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With an Introduction by Justice Alito, this Comparative Constitutional Law casebook stands apart from other casebooks. It focuses on the 15 constitutional democracies in the G-20 Nations: 1) the United States, 2) the United Kingdom, 3) France, 4) Germany, 5) Japan, 6) Italy, 7) India, 8) Canada, 9) Australia, 10) Brazil, 11) South Korea, 12) South Africa, 13) Indonesia, 14) Mexico, and 15) the European Union. The G-20 Nations together comprise 85% of the world's GDP and two-thirds of the world's population. Thus, this casebook maintains a better sense of relevance than similar books, which often focus heavily on esoteric jurisdictions. It is also less Euro-centric than competing books; most chapters include cases from Brazil, Mexico, and India. Substantively, this casebook compares the constitutional law of the selected countries with respect to fourteen topics: 1) constitutionalism - constitutional history, constitution-making, amendment, and secession rules; 2) the emergence and nature of judicial review; 3) the separation of powers, bicameralism, and comparative administrative law; 4) federalism; 5) bills of rights, birthright freedom and equality, and human dignity; 6) equal protection of the laws; 7) freedom of expression; 8) freedom of religion; 9) civil, criminal, and appellate procedure; 10) protection of economic liberties; 11) positive social entitlements and state action; and, finally, 12) constitutional guarantees of democracy. It concludes with ideas that are of particular relevance to U.S. constitutional law. Pedagogically, this casebook contains more cases and fewer law review articles than competing books, making it teacher-friendly. It can be taught in a three-day weekly format, in a two-day weekly format, or in a once-a-week seminar format. It is accompanied by a comprehensive teacher's manual and suggested syllabi.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.005 |
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".