Democratic constitutionalism: Between the popular theories of the constitutionalism and a new perspective of the role played by courts in democracy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/rfdufpr.v64i2.62962Keywords:
Constitutionalism. Democratic constitutionalism. Democracy. Constitutional jurisdiction.Abstract
This article aims to analyze the theory developed by the authors of the Yale school, Robert Post and Reva Siegel, called Democratic Constitutionalism. The theory intends to go against the juriscentric and normative studies prevailing in the American academy, to develop a “positive” contribution, as it is, of the interaction between constitutionalism and democracy, understanding the dialogical flow that involves the process of the legitimation of the constitution. In this process, disagreement is not only welcome, but it is constitutive of such legitimacy, not threatening constitutionalism as some normative theories claim. The analysis developed in this work, rather than an effort directed to the law academy, contributes to a better apprehension of the Brazilian democracy and constitutionalism, since, similarly to the American constitutional reality, we also have the predominance of juriscentric understandings precursor of a (mistaken) identification between judicial supremacy and the supremacy of the constitution, which is evidenced in the protagonist and solipsist actuation that is dominant in the national judiciary.
References
BRANDÃO, Rodrigo. Supremacia Judicial versus Diálogos Constitucionais. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Iuris, 2012.
BUNCHAFT, Maria Eugenia. Constitucionalismo democrático versus minimalismo judicial. Revista Direito, Estado e Sociedade, n. 38, 2011. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/2YKfWwX. Acesso em: 24 abr. 2017.
DWORKIN, Ronald. Taking rights seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977.
FRIEDMAN, Barry. Mediated Popular Constitutionalism. Michigan Law Review, Volume 101, Issue 8, p. 2.596-2.636, 2003.
FRIEDMAN, Barry. The politics of judicial review. In: Texas Law Review, vol. 84, nº 2, 2005. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/2MPt4dM. Acesso em: 17 out. 2016.
FRIEDMAN, Barry. The Will of the People: How public opinion has influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009 (eBook).
GODOY, Miguel. Devolver a Constituição ao povo: crítica à supremacia judicial e diálogos interinstitucionais. 2016. Tese (Doutorado em Direito) – Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, 2016. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/2YO9Vzb. Acesso em: 24 abr. 2017.
GUTMANN, Amy; THOMPSON, Dennis. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
KRAMER, Larry. Popular Constitutionalism, Circa 2004. California Law Review, vol. 92, n. 4, 2004a. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/31pDc0L. Acesso em: 6 abr. 2017.
KRAMER, Larry. The people themselves: popular constitutionalism and judicial review. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004b.
KRAMER, Larry. The Supreme Court 2000 Term Forward: We the Court. Harvard Law Review, v. 115, p. 4-169, 2001.
MENDES, Conrado Hübner. Direitos Fundamentais, Separação de Poderes e Deliberação. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2011.
MOUFFE, Chantal. On The Political: Thinking in action. New York: Routledge, 2005.
NIEMBRO, Roberto. Una Mirada al Constitucionalismo Popular. México: ISONOMIA, n° 38, abril de 2013, p. 191-224.
POST, Robert. Theorizing Disagreement: Reconceiving the Relationship between Law and Politics. California Law Review, vol 98, 2010.
POST, Robert; SIEGEL, Reva. Democratic Constitutionalism. In: BALKIN, Jack; SIEGEL, Reva B. (org.). Constitution 2020. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
POST, Robert; SIEGEL, Reva. Popular Constitutionalism, Departmentalism and Judicial Supremacy. In: California Law Review, v. 92. Berkeley: Berkeley University, 2004, p. 1.027-1.044.
POST, Robert; SIEGEL, Reva. Protecting the Constitution from the People: Juricentric Restrictions on Section Five Power. Faculty Scholarship Series, paper 182, 2002.
POST, Robert; SIEGEL, Reva. Roe Rage: Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash. Faculty Scholarship Series. 169. 2007, p. 373-433. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/31v3UF5. Acesso em: 17 out. 2016.
SEGAL, Jeffrey A.; SPAETH, Harold J. The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
SIEGEL, Reva. “Constitutional Culture, Social Movement and Constitutional Change: The Case of the ERA”. In: California Law Review, vol. 94. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006, p. 1.323-1.419.
SUNSTEIN, Cass R. One case at a time: Judicial minimalism on the Supreme Court. 2. ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.
SUNSTEIN, Cass. R. Incompletely theorized agreements. Chicago: Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper, no 147, 2007.
TUSHNET, Mark. Taking the Constitution away from the Courts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.
WALDRON, Jeremy. Law and Disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish in the Journal agree to the following terms:
– Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal the right of first publication, with the work licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence, allowing the work to be shared as long as proper credit is given to the authors and the initial publication in the Journal is acknowledged;
– Reusers must provide appropriate credit, include a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses the reuser or their use;
– Reusers may not apply additional restrictions, legal terms, or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits;
– Reusers must attribute credit to the creator and allow others to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, exclusively for noncommercial purposes and under the same terms, in compliance with Brazilian Law No. 9,610 of February 19, 1998, and other applicable regulations.
