The historical trend from hereditary or nominated upper chambers to directly elected chambers (97... more The historical trend from hereditary or nominated upper chambers to directly elected chambers (97) is, perhaps, relevant to a stage of the Canadian constitutional debate that we seem to have trouble reaching, as is the 'unmistakable trend' toward the legitimation of constituent power by plebiscite vote (38). The suggestion that successful constitutional codification requires a 'certain climate of popular political consensus' is the closest he seems to come to direct political commentary (25), especially if read in conjuction wth the very carefully worded statement of the 'red herring' theory of constitutional initiative (23). His frequent caveat is of the principle of the 'nontransferability of political institutions;' leading to reiterated contempt for 'constitutional eclecticism.' The fact that an institution has worked well in another country is no guarantee that it will work well, or even work at all, in our own. This reminder has been quite relevant of the Canadian constitutional debate in recent years, although a conclusion along the lines of 'copy cautiously' could seem as justified as McWhinney's maxim that the best models are those drawn directly from one's own society and its historical experiences. The strengths of the book are obvious: they would include McWhinney's obvious erudition, the encyclopaedic range of his knowledge, the comfortable precision of his analysis, and his capacity to point out some of the complexities of constitutional law without getting lost in the maze. The weaknesses are equally obvious. His language often goes beyond erudition to pedantry, and his sentences become unbelievably tangled and extended. (What is wrong with a simple declaratory sentence once in a while?) Many of the chapters do not so much grind to a conclusion as end abruptly in mid-thought. The very scope of the argument in such a brief work (236 pages excluding the appendix) means that many relevant ideas are covered briefly, and some (such as constitutional amendment procedures, role of upper chambers, division of powers) are hardly touched on at all. McWhinney's Constitution-making is a book that no one working on the subject can afford to miss, although most will leave it with the feeling that it could have followed through more thoroughly. PETER MCCORMICK University of Lethbridge
The historical trend from hereditary or nominated upper chambers to directly elected chambers (97... more The historical trend from hereditary or nominated upper chambers to directly elected chambers (97) is, perhaps, relevant to a stage of the Canadian constitutional debate that we seem to have trouble reaching, as is the 'unmistakable trend' toward the legitimation of constituent power by plebiscite vote (38). The suggestion that successful constitutional codification requires a 'certain climate of popular political consensus' is the closest he seems to come to direct political commentary (25), especially if read in conjuction wth the very carefully worded statement of the 'red herring' theory of constitutional initiative (23). His frequent caveat is of the principle of the 'nontransferability of political institutions;' leading to reiterated contempt for 'constitutional eclecticism.' The fact that an institution has worked well in another country is no guarantee that it will work well, or even work at all, in our own. This reminder has been quite relevant of the Canadian constitutional debate in recent years, although a conclusion along the lines of 'copy cautiously' could seem as justified as McWhinney's maxim that the best models are those drawn directly from one's own society and its historical experiences. The strengths of the book are obvious: they would include McWhinney's obvious erudition, the encyclopaedic range of his knowledge, the comfortable precision of his analysis, and his capacity to point out some of the complexities of constitutional law without getting lost in the maze. The weaknesses are equally obvious. His language often goes beyond erudition to pedantry, and his sentences become unbelievably tangled and extended. (What is wrong with a simple declaratory sentence once in a while?) Many of the chapters do not so much grind to a conclusion as end abruptly in mid-thought. The very scope of the argument in such a brief work (236 pages excluding the appendix) means that many relevant ideas are covered briefly, and some (such as constitutional amendment procedures, role of upper chambers, division of powers) are hardly touched on at all. McWhinney's Constitution-making is a book that no one working on the subject can afford to miss, although most will leave it with the feeling that it could have followed through more thoroughly. PETER MCCORMICK University of Lethbridge
Uploads
Papers by Janice Dickin