The Partial Commencement of Acts: A Constitutional Criticism of the Lieutenant Governor in Council's "Line-Item Veto" Power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extent to which a separation of powers doctrine applies in the context of a parliamentary democracy such as Canada has long been a matter of debate. The author argues that this doctrine does have application in Canada and that it is violated by the blanket ability of some provincial executives to proclaim only portions of passed acts in force. This ability is rooted in the Interpretation Acts of a number of provinces and its effect, which the author equates with a line item veto, is to usurp the authority of the legislature and potentially upset the legislative compromise that ordinarily accompanies the passage of legislation. In the United States, the Supreme Court has found that bestowing a largely unfettered ability on the Office of the President to delete portions of legislation passed by Congress is not permitted by the US Constitution. Given the application of some form of a separation of powers doctrine in Canada, the author argues that the partial commencement of acts is also unconstitutional.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| 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".