Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Article delves into the question of the boundaries of constitution-making power. Traditionally, constituent power is regarded as an original, inherent and unlimited power. That is why constitution-making moments are described in the literature as a kind of ‘wild-west.’ Constituent power is unbound by prior constitutional rules. But does this mean that it is unlimited in the sense that it can disregard any basic principles, or should we endorse Benjamin Constant’s declaration that “sovereignty of the people is not unlimited”? This Article provides a preliminary sketch of possible limits of constituent power. First, according to some approaches to constitution-making powers, there must be certain limitations even on constituent power derived from natural law. In fact, Sieyès himself remarked that ‘prior to and above the nation, there is only natural law,’ which implies that Sieyès viewed constituent power as limited by certain principles. Moreover, nowadays, international and supra-national law may impose various limitations on the constitution-making power. Furthermore, if the goal of constitution-making is not to produce a written constitution, but to promote constitutionalism, then a plausible argument is that constitutionalism and constitutions are inseparably linked so that an exercise of constituent power cannot undermine constitutionalism but must be linked to certain common principles of law. Finally, the very concept of constituent power may carry certain inherent limitations, since in order to be consistent with the idea of ‘the people giving itself a constitution,’ it must observe certain fundamental rights that are necessary for constituent power to preserve itself and reappear in the future. This Article evaluates the various routes of restrictions on constituent power.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".