PEOPLE AS THE INTERPRETER OF THE CONSTITUTION: REFLECTIONS ON POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM
Abstract
In this paper we will analyze the work of two American authors on popular constitutionalism: Michael Serota and Tom Donnelly. Initially, we will study Serota’s notion of Interpretative Competence, which is based on the idea of Constitutional Fidelity and has two dimensions: Constitutional Knowledge and Constitutional Reasoning. Next, we will examine the idea that people do not have Interpretive Competence and that Supreme Court Ministers do. The second part of the paper will deal with Tom Donnelly's agenda for making popular constitutionalism work. In particular, the People`s Veto proposal will be analyzed. The research is qualitative and employs the deductive approach method. The conclusion points out that Donnelly's and Serota's ideas are not as contradictory as they may seem, and that the democratization of constitutional decision-making does not necessarily violate the obligation of constitutional fidelity.
Downloads
References
DONNELLY, Tom. Making Popular Constitutionalism Work. Harvard Public Law Working Paper, n. 11-29, Cambridge. Disponível em:
KRAMER, Larry D. The people themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
POST, Robert C; SIEGEL, Reva B. Popular Constitutionalism, Departmentalism, and Judicial Supremacy. Faculty Scholarship Series, 2004. Disponível em:
POZEN, David. Judicial Elections as Popular Constitutionalism. Columbia Law Review, Vol. 110, p. 2047-2134, Nova Iorque. 2010. Disponível em:
SEROTA, Michael. Popular Constitutional Interpretation. Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 5, Connecticut. 2012. Disponível em:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work is simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which allows sharing the work with recognition of its authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are authorized to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (eg, publishing in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
The author declares to be responsible for the originality, uniqueness and currency of the article content, by means of complete references to all consulted sources.
Each author grants to the LexCult Journal permission to evaluate, normalize, edit and publish the submitted article, in an unprecedented way.
Plagiarism cases and self plagiarism will not be accepted under no circumstances. The plagiarist will be prohibited to publish in LexCult Journal for 5 years.
The copy, in full or to some extent, of an article published in LexCult Journal will be allowed as long as the source (author and Journal) is informed, being forbidden the commercial use and the production and distribution of derivative works. In case the exclusivity clause is broken, the submission will be filed and the author will be prohibited to publish in LexCult Journal for 5 years, without bringing any civil actions provided by national law.
The author is aware that:
a) Submissions may be rejected if the journal's Editorial Board, responsible for evaluation and article selection, does not consider it pertinent for publication, whatever may be the well-justified reasons;
b) Editors reserve the right to modify the submitted manuscript - without any content alteration - in view of its normalization and adaptation to the publication norms.
