{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017313432835820895, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.8807017543859645, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Abdicating and Limiting Parliament's Sovereignty — Reply to Goldsworthy

Jeffery Goldsworthy’s thoughtful review article is just the sort of response that one hopes for in writing a monograph. Inevitably, authors focus on certain puzzles which are of greatest interest to them. In spending so many evenings and weekends worrying about the detail of these puzzles, one’s greatest hope is not only that other readers will find those efforts helpful and worthwhile, but that they will be motivated to join issue. And this is exactly what Jeffrey Goldsworthy has done in his review article.Goldsworthy’s writing covers a wide range of comparative constitutional law and theory. He has already presented carefully thought out views on many central constitutional and theoretical puzzles. It is not surprising, therefore, that he does not agree with me in many regards. However, it is gratifying that he has taken the time to engage so thoroughly with the arguments presented in The Constitution of Independence.The purpose of this Reply is to isolate points of agreement and disagreement in aid of future research and writing in the area of comparative constitutional law and theory. As both Goldsworthy and I acknowledge, a certain amount of complexity, even confusion, is inevitable in this area. I have tried to keep this Reply relatively brief in order not to add to that complexity, and in the hope of avoiding confusion. The point of this sort of mise au point is to assist readers in knowing where to direct their own contemplations of these topics.The balance of this Reply will deal first with central points of debate or disagreement, and later with points of agreement.