The Structural and Administrative Demands of Unwritten Constitutional Principles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article challenges the traditional view in administrative law scholarship that the mandate and design of administrative decision-makers are principally products of executive policy choice and legislative delegation. Drawing on public law theories of structural interpretation and positioned within the growing field of administrative constitutionalism, this article argues that unwritten features of the Constitution can make concrete demands on institutional structure and tribunal design such that certain functions and features of the administrative state are constitutionally required. The argument emerges from a careful analysis of a single case study, that of the discipline, and in particular the removal, of superior court judges in Canada. The analysis reveals that section 99(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides an incomplete account of the procedures that must be followed in order to remove a federally appointed judge from the bench. More specifically, the case study establishes that the principle of judicial independence requires that judges be eligible for removal under section 99(1) only after an administrative process is held, one that investigates the alleged misconduct and assesses the facts against the constitutional standard of good judicial behaviour. Judicial independence further demands that this process embody certain essential features—features that are familiar to administrative law: the inquiry must be carried out by a body that is independent from the political branches of government; the body must conduct itself in accordance with a commitment to the independence of the judiciary; the inquiry must be carried out in accordance with the duty of fairness; and both the process and substantive determinations of the inquiry process must be subject to review by the courts. While current theories of administrative constitutionalism have often been focused on the role of administrative decision-makers in interpreting and implementing constitutional rights, this article builds on the work of Mashaw, Lee, Bremer, and Metzger and Stack to open and contribute to important structural conversations in the field.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".