scholarly journals A constituição brasileira está viva? Living constitution e a atualização da constituição pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal na questão das uniões homoafetivas

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 48-75
Author(s):  
José Ribas Vieira ◽  
Camila Luna de Carvalho ◽  
Mário Cesar da Silva Andrade
Keyword(s):  
Direct Action ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
Original Sense ◽  
Cass Sunstein ◽  
Preliminary Draft ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Common Law Marriage

O presente artigo analisa a aplicabilidade da doutrina da Living Constitution ao contexto brasileiro. Partindo do julgamento da Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental 132 e da Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade 4277, sobre o reconhecimento jurídico da união estável homoafetiva, investiga-se a adaptabilidade da referida doutrina à prática jurisprudencial do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). A defesa de uma Constituição viva, apta a abarcar novas situações, pode conflitar com o sentido pretendido pelo constituinte democraticamente legitimado. Cumpre analisar essa tensão entre atualização e majoritarismo na prática decisória do STF. Metodologicamente, a pesquisa confronta as propostas parlamentares e populares sobre uniões entre pessoas do mesmo sexo apresentadas nas comissões de elaboração do anteprojeto da Constituição de 1988 com a jurisprudência do STF sobre o tema. A partir da doutrina da Living Constitution, teorizada por David Strauss e Cass Sunstein, são analisadas as críticas de autores originalistas, como William Rehnquist. No tema selecionado, a pesquisa identifica um exemplo de como a tensão entre a Living Constitution e o majoritarismo democrático aparece na jurisdição constitucional brasileira. Em conclusão, aponta-se a fragilidade de uma atividade atualizadora da Constituição que não esteja amparada pela coerência com a jurisprudência da Corte. No Brasil, a ausência de uma cultura de precedentes abre a possibilidade de a Living Constitution se degenerar em decisões mais resultantes de volições conjunturais do STF do que de uma evolução jurisprudencial consistente. Abstract This article analyses the applicability of Living Constitution doctrine in Brazilian context, based on the Allegation of Disobedience of Fundamental Precept (ADPF) 54 and the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) 4277 judgments, about the legal recognition of homosexual common-law marriage. It aims to investigate the compatibility of Living Constitution doctrine with the Federal Supreme Court (STF) decisions.  Supporting a Living Constitution, able to change over time and embrace new circumstances, tends to confront with the original sense intended by the democratically legitimized Constituent.  Therefore, it matters analyses how the STF deals with their judgments in this tension between updating and majoritarianism. Methodologically, the research confronts parliamentary and popular proposals about homosexual common-law marriage, presented in the elaboration commissions of Federal Constitution of 1988 preliminary draft, with the STF judgments about this subject.  Starting from the Living Constitution doctrine, theorized by David Strauss and Cass Sunstein, have been analyzed criticisms from originalist authors, as William Rehnquist. On the theme in vogue, the research identifies an example of how does the tension between Living Constitution and democratic majoritarianism appear in the Brazilian constitutional jurisdiction. In conclusion, it is presented the fragility of Constitution updating that is not coherent with the Court’s jurisprudence. In Brazil, the lack of an established precedent culture allows Living Constitution doctrine to degenerate into judicial decisions, more resultant of STF conjuncture wills than a consistent evolution of the Court’s decisions.

National Legislatures

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin L. Cope ◽  
Hooman Movassagh
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Comparative Analyses ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Legislative Branch ◽  
National Legislatures

One critique of some common-law comparative legal academies is their intensively “court-centric” focus, which, some believe, “marginalize[s]” the role of the legislative branch. The same may be said of the extant comparative international law literature: most of it concerns the interpretive approaches of national courts. In fact, one of the field’s seminal pieces characterizes comparative international law as involving “comparative analyses of various domestic court decisions.” Not surprisingly, then, nearly all of this volume’s contributions deal mostly or exclusively with courts and judicial decisions. We agree that courts can play a large part in diversifying how international law works across different systems, but we contend that the foundation of the comparative international law project lies elsewhere. We argue that among the most important and underappreciated interpretative acts—and therefore, those currently most needing study—are the international law interpretations of national legislatures.

Malaysia: Religious Pluralism and the Constitution in a Contested Polity

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 356-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Harding
Keyword(s):  
Islamic Law ◽  
Religious Conversion ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
Highly Sensitive ◽  
Plural Society ◽  
Muslim Majority ◽  
Historical Developments

Malaysia has a classically plural society with a Malay/ Muslim majority and a legal system which, for historical reasons, is bifurcated between the common law and Islamic law. It also has a colonial-era federal constitution under which Islam is a state issue. Disputes concerning religion are both many and divisive. They are dealt with mainly in constitutional terms, especially in debates about the notion of an Islamic state, in light of Article 3 and the enshrinement of an official religion and in litigation. The latter is rendered complex by the separation of Islamic from common law jurisdiction in 1988, a fact that has given rise to highly sensitive and troubling litigation involving, especially, religious conversion in Lina Joy (2007). This article traces historical developments relating to religion and the law, and finds cause for some optimism that religious divides can be bridged by constitutional means, in light of recent judicial responses and evolving debates about the constitutional position of Islam.

Parallels between Talmudic and New York Usury Laws

1966 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard J. Meislin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Economic System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Jewish Law ◽  
Special Situation ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Legal Limits ◽  
Communist Countries

The two jurisdictions with the greatest volume and complexity of laws dealing with usury are the United States and Israel. England, the wellspring of our common law, and one of present-day Israel's legal fonts, did away with all regulation of interest over a century ago. All of continental Europe contains only two or three jurisdictions which apply legal limits to interest on loans. The communist countries present a special situation since private loans at interest have no official place in the economic system. Islamic countries, like Pakistan, constitutionally frown on interest but it is present in practice, thereby embarrassing the secular authorities. However, the extent of legal experience with loans at interest in all other jurisdictions combined does not rival that wealth of elaborate study which is to be found in judicial decisions and legislative documents in American and Jewish law. It is, therefore, of interest to examine from a comparative standpoint the approach to usury taken by United States' courts and by Jewish legal authorities to see in which respects they differ and are similar.

scholarly journals CONTROLE DE CONSTITUCIONALIDADE DIFUSO E O SENADO FEDERAL: LETRA MORTA NA CONSTITUIÇÃO OU INCONSTITUCIONALIDADE DAS SÚMULAS VINCULANTES?

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (Especial 2) ◽  
pp. 211-216
Author(s):  
Jessica Fernanda Alves Cavalcante ◽  
Luis Henrique Ramos Alves ◽  
Myllena Silva ◽  
Shirley Oliveira Lima Nomura
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
Federal Supreme

In order to guarantee its hierarchical supremacy in the Brazilian legal system, the Federal Constitution has the so-called Constitutionality Control, and such an institute has several modalities, so that we will talk about the Diffuse Control exercised by the STF and the rule established by article 52, X, of the CF, which states that it is the responsibility of the Federal Senate to suspend the execution, in whole or in part, of a law declared unconstitutional by a final decision of the Federal Supreme Court. However, this provision of the Constitution has been considered by lawyers and jurists as a "dead letter", since EC Nº 45/04 instituted the binding summaries in Article 103-A, which has replaced said rule, stating that the STF may , officio or by provocation, after repeated decisions on constitutional matters, approve the binding summary. Faced with this is in doubt the precedent is constitutional and the competence of the Senate is dead letter or the Precedent is Unconstitutional?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document