JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTIONALISM AND LEGAL CONSTITUTIONALISM

• Autor(a) principal: Lacerda, Ludmila Lais Costa
• Data de Publicação: 2015
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Revista Brasileira de Teoria Constitucional
• Texto Completo: http://www.indexlaw.org/index.php/teoriaconstitucional/article/view/139
• topic: Constitutionalism, Political, Legal, Judicial review; Constitucionalismo, Político, Jurídico, Judicial review

The aim of this study is to generate a debate on the Judicial Review arrangement considering questions  about  the  representativeness,  supremacy  and  institutional  competence  in  a democratic  system  with  separation  of  powers.  We  intend  to  investigate  theoretical perspectives  for  an  institutional  dialogue  construction  process  of  decisions  under  the historical perspective and designation of the 'last word'. The study will be conducted from the theoretical approach of authors Jeremy Waldron, Richard Bellamy, Ronald Dworkin and David  Dyzenhaus  and  arguments  of  the  proposals  'Political  Constitutionalism'  (more approximate to political positivism) and 'Legal Constitutionalism'. The prospects can be considered complementary to the extent that stresses and are proposed construction and modification  in  the  practice  of  institutionalized  public  decisions.  The  three  powers (legislative, executive and judiciary) establish relations through dialogues, including arrangements such as Judicial Review from disagreements and institutional discussions. Interests that this dialogue does not configure mere destructive dispute with institutional competition issues illusions about the ultimate and monopoly of authority, but that would encourage opportunities and conditions for mutual cooperation and coordination with built decisions more democratic and legitimate way, considering development (social, political and legal), convergent adjustments and history of a community.