Imperio de la ley, constitucionalismo y democracia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the events of September and October of 2017 in Catalonia many voices argued that voting and democracy should be above the rule of law and the Constitution. The supporters of the independence of Catalonia thus established an opposition between the rule of law and the Constitution, on the one hand, and the democratic principle, on the other. In this talk I want to examine briefly if this opposition can be sustained and if it does not rest on mistaken assumptions or confusions about the rule of law, the sense of the Constitution and the very idea of democracy. In the first place, I would like to frame this opposition in the current diagnoses about what some authors have called ‘the populist moment’. Populism makes sense as a manifestation of the crisis of liberal democracy. So the same expression of the opposition between democracy and liberal constitutionalism, as some political actors claim, should be understood as a significant symptom of the crisis of liberal democracy nowadays. Is it possible to think of an illiberal democracy? This would amount to a democracy without the institutions of the rule of law or constitutional safeguards. In the second part of the talk, I will consider the arguments presented in the famous ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada on the question of the secession of Quebec (1998). The sentence offers an incisive and highly relevant examination of the principles inspiring a democratic constitutional regime. I will dwell on the analysis of democracy and the constitutionalism principle since it allows us to examine closely how they relate. As the Canadian judges conclude, it is not possible to understand democracy apart from the rule of law and constitutionalism nor as being above them.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".