Proceedings and debates of the Convention of Louisiana : which assembled at the city of New Orleans January 14, 1844 [i. e. 1845] /

Mode of access: Internet.

The methods of changing the constitutions of the states, especially that of Rhode Island.

The questions proposed by the Senate of Rhode Island to the judges of its Supreme Court, March 24, 1883.--The answer and opinion of the judges, March 30, 1883.--An article upon the opinion contributed to the Providence journal, May 31, 1883.--A reply to a pamphlet entitled "Some thoughts on the constitution of Rhode Island, by Thomas Durfee", issued in November, 1884.

Journal of the Convention of the state of Pennsylvania, to propose amendments to the constitution, commenced and held at the state capitol in Harrisburg, on the second day of May 1837.

Vol. 2: Minutes of the Committee of the Whole.

The Office of the Auditor General of Canada : Government in Exile? (Working Paper 31)

How can a "servant of Parliament" be held in check if it disregards the constitutional conventions of responsible government and takes a place in its own right in the representative institutions? the paper presents a history of the modernization of the legislative audit in the federal Parliament. It considers the evolution of the powers and practices of the Office of the Auditor General, how its role has become intertwined with that of Treasury Board Secretariat, and the eclipse of the House of Commons' Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The paper is an abridged version of a paper prepared for a conference in Saskatoon in November, 2001. It is to be published in a UBC Press volume edited by David Smith, John Courtney and Duff Spafford of the Department of Political Science at the University of Saskatchewan. The Press will hold copyright. See also "Biggest Scandal in Canadian History," School of Policy Studies Working Paper Number 23.

Talking with the “pouvoir constituant” in times of constitutional reform: The European Court of Justice on Private Applicants’ Access to Justice. Research Paper in Law 3/2003

[From the Introduction]. European lawyers, at least those dealing predominantly with institutional matters, are living particularly interesting times since the setting-up of the “European Convention on the Future of Europe” in December 2001.1 As the Convention’s mandate, spelled out in rather broad terms in the European Council’s declaration of Laeken,2 is potentially unlimited, and as the future constitution of the European Union (EU) will be ultimately adopted by the subsequent Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), there appears to be a great possibility to clarify, to simplify and also to reform many of the more controversial elements in the European legal construction. The present debate on the future of the European constitution also highlights the relationship between the pouvoir constituant3 and the European Courts, the Court of Justice (ECJ) and its Court of First Instance (CFI), who have to interpret the basic rules and principles of the EU.4 In that light, the present article will focus on a classic theme of the Court’s case law: the relationship between judges and pouvoir constituant. In the EU, this relationship has traditionally been marked by the ECJ’s role as driving force in the “constitutionalisation” of the EC Treaties – which has, to a large extent, been accepted and even codified by the Member States in subsequent treaty revisions. However, since 1994, the ECJ appears to be more reluctant to act as a “law-maker.”5 The recent judgment in Unión de Pequeños Agricultores (UPA)6 – an important decision by which the ECJ refused to liberalize individuals’ access to the Community Courts – is also interesting in this context. UPA may be seen as another proof of judicial restraint - or even as indicator of the beginning of a new phase in the “constitutional dialogue” between the ECJ and the “Masters of the Treaties.”

The Convention on the Future of Europe: Extended Working Group or Constitutional Assembly? Research Papers in Law, 4/2005

From the Introduction. “We are a Convention. We are not an Intergovernmental Conference because we have not been given a mandate by Governments to negotiate on their behalf the solutions which we propose. We are not a Parliament because we are not elected by citizens to draft legislative texts. […] We are a Convention. What does this mean? A Convention is a group of men and women meeting for the sole purpose of preparing a joint proposal. […] It is a task modest in form but immense in content, for if it succeeds in accordance with our mandate, it will light up the future of Europe”.1 In his speech inaugurating the Convention process on 26 February 2002 in Brussels, Convention President VALÉRY GISCARD D’ESTAING raises three issues: first, he refers to the Convention’s nature and method; second, he talks of the Convention’s aim and output; and, third, he evokes the Convention’s historic and symbolic significance. All three aspects have been amply discussed in the past two years by politicians and academics analysing whether the Convention’s purpose and instruments differ fundamentally from those of previous reform rounds; whether the input into and output of the Convention process qualitatively improves European Treaty revision; and whether the Convention as an institution lived up to its symbolic and normative load, reflected in comparisons with “Philadelphia” or references to a “constitutional moment”.2

Journal of the Constitutional convention of the commonwealth of Virginia to amend the Constitution of Virginia for voting by certain members of the armed forces. Held in the old hall of the House of delegates in the state Capitol at Richmond April 30, May 1, 2, 22, 1945 [and]

J. Sinclair Brown, president of the convention

The debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, : as recommended by the general convention at Philadelphia in 1787. Together with the journal of the Federal convention, Luther Martin's letter, Yates's minutes, Congressional opinions, Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of '98-'99, and other illustrations of the Constitution. In four volumes.

A fifth vol. was published in 1845, with the title: Debates on the adoption of the federal Constitution, in the convention held at Philadelphia, in 1787; with a diary of the debates of the Congress of the Confereration; as reported by James Madison ... Rev. and newly arranged by Johnathan Elliot. Complete in one volume. Vol. V. Supplementary to Elliot's Debates ... 1845.

Synergistic interaction between gold nanoparticles and nickel phthalocyanine in layer-by-layer (LbL) films: evidence of constitutional dynamic chemistry (CDC)

The concept of constitutional dynamic chemistry (CDC) based on the control of non-covalent interactions in supramolecular structures is promising for having a large impact on nanoscience and nanotechnology if adequate nanoscale manipulation methods are used. In this study, we demonstrate that the layer-by-layer (LbL) technique may be used to produce electroactive electrodes with ITO coated by tetrasulfonated nickel phthalocyanine (NiTsPc) alternated with poly(allylamine hydrochloride) (PAH) incorporating gold nanoparticles (AuNP), in which synergy has been achieved in the interaction between the nanoparticles and NiTsPc. The catalytic activity toward hydrogen peroxide (H(2)O(2)) in multilayer films was investigated using cyclic voltammetry, where oxidation of H(2)O(2) led to increased currents in the PAH-AuNP/NiTsPc films for the electrochemical processes associated with the phthalocyanine ring and nickel at 0.52 and 0.81 V vs. SCE, respectively, while for PAH/NiTsPc films (without AuNP) only the first redox process was affected. In control experiments we found out that the catalytic activity was not solely due to the presence of AuNP, but rather to the nanoparticles inducing NiTsPc supramolecular structures that favored access to their redox sites, thus yielding strong charge transfer. The combined effects of NiTsPc and AuNP, which could only be observed in nanostructured LbL films, point to another avenue to pursue within the CDC paradigm.

Novel inactivating mutations in the GH secretagogue receptor gene in patients with constitutional delay of growth and puberty

Background: A limited number of mutations in the GH secretagogue receptor gene (GHSR) have been described in patients with short stature. Objective: To analyze GHSR in idiopathic short stature (ISS) children including a subgroup of constitutional delay of growth and puberty (CDGP) patients. Subjects and methods: The GHSR coding region was directly sequenced in 96 independent patients with ISS, 31 of them with CDGP, in 150 adults, and in 197 children with normal stature. The pharmacological consequences of GHSR non-synonymous variations were established using in vitro cell-based assays. Results: Five different heterozygous point variations in GHSR were identified (c.-6 G>C, c.251G>T (p.Ser84Ile), c.505G>A (p.Ala169Thr), c.545 T>C (p.Val182Ala), and c.1072G>A (p.Ala358Thr)), all in patients with CDGP. Neither these allelic variants nor any other mutations were found in 694 alleles from controls. Functional studies revealed that two of these variations (p.Ser84Ile and p. Val182Ala) result in a decrease in basal activity that was in part explained by a reduction in cell surface expression. The p.Ser84Ile mutation was also associated with a defect in ghrelin potency. These mutations were identified in two female patients with CDGP (at the age of 13 years, their height SDS were -2.4 and -2.3). Both patients had normal progression of puberty and reached normal adult height (height SDS of -0.7 and -1.4) without treatment. Conclusion: This is the first report of GHSR mutations in patients with CDGP. Our data raise the intriguing possibility that abnormalities in ghrelin receptor function may influence the phenotype of individuals with CDGP.