Reference health
Weak-Form Judicial Review and American Exceptionalism
22/22 checkable references clean · checked 2026-08-28
Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.
62 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.
The 22 checked references that resolve
resolves10.4414/pc-f.2003.05929
Message de Ruth Dreifuss, ancienne conseillère fédérale, aux participantes et participants du Congrès SSMG 2003
resolves10.1037/e518982013-001
Stresses, Strains and Adaptive Responses of Female Psychologists In Nova Scotia
resolves10.1080/1323238x.2003.11911097
Institutional dialogue between courts and legislatures in the definition of fundamental rights: lessons from Canada (and elsewhere)
resolves10.2139/ssrn.621245
Constitutional, Remedial and International Dialogues About Rights: The Canadian Experience
resolves10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.u250622
Minter, Susan Anne, (born 6 April 1949), horticultural consultant, since 2005
resolves10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.u253981
Murphy, Sir Jonathan (Michael), (born 17 June 1958), Chief Constable, Merseyside Police, since 2010
resolves10.4337/9781849808101.00015
Written Constitutions and the Administrative State: On the Constitutional Character of Administrative Law
resolves10.1037/a0023367
Why does the public cooperate with law enforcement? The influence of the purposes and targets of policing.
The 62 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedref1
no DOI — not checkedref3
no DOI — not checked63; Thomson Newspapers v
no DOI — not checkedMinister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 S
no DOI — not checkedref6
no DOI — not checkedref9
no DOI — not checkedref10
no DOI — not checkedref11
no DOI — not checkedHuman Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net
no DOI — not checkedH-6, ss. 13, 53, 54, as am. 1998, c. 9, ss. 27, 28. 72 Liberty Net, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626. explanation -distinct from the role played by s. 33 -for why the SCC has generally been more deferential to legislative sequels than the
no DOI — not checkedref14
no DOI — not checkedref15
no DOI — not checkedref16
no DOI — not checkedCharter Dialogue Revisited-Or 'Much Ado About Metaphors' , 45 OSGOODE HALL L
no DOI — not checkedref19
no DOI — not checked610 at para. 11 (rejected the idea that the legislation represented some form of dialogue, or legislative sequel, which should "militate for or 137 See generally Michael Comiskey, Can a President Pack -or Draft -the Supreme Court? FDR and the Court in the Great Depression and World War II
no DOI — not checkedThe Origins of Franklin D. Roosevelt's "CourtPacking" Plan
no DOI — not checkedGlobalization in Search of Justification: Toward a Theory of Comparative Constitutional Interpretation, 74 IND
no DOI — not checkedref23
no DOI — not checkedForeword -Comment: Constitutional Comparisons, Convergence, Resistance, Engagement, 119 HARV
no DOI — not checkedref25
no DOI — not checkedThe Possibilities of Comparative Constitutional Law, 108 YALE L
no DOI — not checkedCf. also Richard Primus, A Brooding Omnipresence: Totalitarianism in Postwar Constitutional Thought, 106 YALE L
no DOI — not checkedref28
no DOI — not checkedF94FFB778ADAEC2E6EA8653D)~NHRC+Report+(Prelims).pdf/$file/NHRC+Report+(P relims)
no DOI — not checkedref30
no DOI — not checkedref31
no DOI — not checkedCharter Dialogue, supra note 6
no DOI — not checkedOf course, not all supporters of the idea of weak-form review actually do endorse this idea of deference: see e.g., Kent Roach, Constitutional and Common Law Dialogues Between the Supreme Court and Canadian Legislatures, 80
no DOI — not checkedref34
no DOI — not checkedDialogic Judicial Review and its Critics, 23 S.C
no DOI — not checkedI have argued elsewhere, however, that to some degree this makes them actual supporters of strong-form review: Dixon, Charter Dialogue, supra note 6
no DOI — not checkedref38
no DOI — not checkedref39
no DOI — not checkedref41
no DOI — not checkedref43
no DOI — not checkedref44
no DOI — not checkedref45
no DOI — not checkedref47
no DOI — not checkedref48
no DOI — not checkedref50
no DOI — not checkedref51
no DOI — not checkedref52
no DOI — not checkedref53
no DOI — not checkedref55
no DOI — not checkedref56
no DOI — not checkedref58
no DOI — not checkedref59
no DOI — not checkedref60
no DOI — not checkedref62
no DOI — not checkedref63
no DOI — not checkedref64
no DOI — not checkedref65
no DOI — not checkedref66
no DOI — not checkedref68
no DOI — not checkedref72
no DOI — not checkedref74
no DOI — not checkedref75
no DOI — not checkedref77
no DOI — not checkedref78
no DOI — not checkedref82
no DOI — not checkedref83
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings,
or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-08-28 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Embed this badge
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.
<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.1833743"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.1833743/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.1833743)