Notwithstanding rights, review, or remedy? On the notwithstanding clause and the operation of legislation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Charter’s notwithstanding clause makes exception to something, but what is that something? Received readings of the notwithstanding clause err in assuming that the clause makes exception to rights or to judicial review. It is argued, instead, that the clause makes exception to the remedy that follows from a finding that legislation is inconsistent with targeted rights and freedoms. That remedy is the one outlined in the Constitution’s supremacy clause: legislation is of ‘no force or effect’ to ‘the extent of the inconsistency’ with such rights and freedoms. By reviewing how the expression ‘no force or effect’ is equivalent to the expression ‘inoperable,’ it is argued that the notwithstanding clause empowers a legislature to affirm that legislation ‘shall have such operation as it would have but for’ targeted rights and freedoms. Such affirmation does not suspend rights and it does not block judicial review. Rather, it secures the operation of legislation even if such legislation is held by a court to be inconsistent with constitutional rights and freedoms. It follows that legislation invoking the notwithstanding clause may be challenged in judicial review and that a court may declare such legislation to be inconsistent with targeted rights and freedoms.
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".