Constitutional Change Without Constitutional Amendment - A Review of Constitutional Pariah: Reference Re Senate Reform and The Future of Parliament, Emmett Macfarlane (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2021)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If there is a better book on the challenges of constitutional change in Canada, I have yet to see it. Emmett Macfarlane’s masterwork on the constitutional politics of Senate renewal — Constitutional Pariah: Reference re Senate Reform and the Future of Parliament — exposes the great paradox of constitutional reform in Canada: the Canadian Constitution is today virtually unamendable, but it evolves constantly in both its form and content.1 Here is the puzzle: how can our constitution be simultaneously frozen and ever-changing? This outstanding book illustrates the complex and fascinating dynamics behind an essential feature of Canadian constitutionalism: the political reality of constitutional change without constitutional amendment. In this review essay prepared at the invitation of the Alberta Law Review, I identify several of Macfarlane’s major contributions in this book and then situate the importance of his study to our understanding of the Canadian Constitution and the theory of constitutional amendment. What results, I hope, is not only a strong endorsement of this excellent book but moreover an invitation to law and political science scholars in Canada to join the theoretically rich discussion of real-time practical relevance that Macfarlane has initiated to the enormous benefit of the field of public law.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".