Constitutional Chronometry, Legal Continuity, Stability and the Rule of Law: A Canadian Perspective on Aspects of Richard Kay’s Scholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United States and Canada have many common traits, including a constitutional heritage originally derived in part from British common law and statute, a written constitution declared to be supreme law, a federal and local state (or provincial) division of legislative powers, an entrenched bill of rights, written procedures for constitutional amendment, and constitutional judicial review. However, while the United States has a presidential and congressional system of government, Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of responsible government. Moreover, unlike the United States, Canada achieved its independence from the United Kingdom gradually and incrementally, within the existing legal and constitutional framework. The corollary to this evolution is that there is no predominant revolutionary tradition or discourse in Canadian constitutional discourse or jurisprudence. Canadian legal and political culture places great value on the maintenance of legal continuity and stability, and in adhering to prescribed forms and processes of law-making.\nProfessor Richard Kay’s scholarship has long explored the nature and essence of American constitutionalism and the importance, in that tradition, of its commitment to a written document. And in his master work, The Glorious Revolution and the Continuity of Law, he examined the fraught and tenuous relationship between law and revolution. The following essay examines Professor Kay’s article, “Constitutional Chronometry,” and tests some of the ideas and assumptions therein, notably from a Canadian perspective. The essay concludes that revolutionary breaks with existing constitutional and legal orders are not the inevitable outcomes of anachronistic constitutions, however much revolutionaries may attempt to justify their actions ex post facto in that light. If revolutions do occur and liberal constitutions are overthrown, it will not be because the constitutions themselves are out of date, but because the commitment to constitutionalism itself has been abandoned.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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 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".