The aim of this thesis is to explore the differences and similarities between Justice Antonin Scalia’s textualist approach to interpreting the Constitution and Justice Stephen Breyer’s Living Constitution approach (also called the evolutionist approach) by applying these disparate legal theories to Schwarzenegger v Entertainment Merchants Association, a case currently pending before the Supreme Court whose resolution centers on the interpretation of the First Amendment. The textualist approach relies primarily on interpreting the original meaning of the text of the Constitution, and attempting to decide cases in a way that is faithful to an amendment’s words as written (Rossum et al. 4). The Living Constitution, or evolutionist approach to constitutional interpretation, contends that the meaning of the Constitution evolves with the standards of society, and the purpose or intent behind the Constitution or an amendment is as important, if not more so, than the literal language when interpreting a Constitutional amendment as it applies to actual cases as they arise (8). These two approaches are fundamentally oppositional, and Justices Scalia and Breyer are the very embodiment of these approaches on the Supreme Court today; each man avidly defends his respective approach in his opinions and other written works, and each exhibits the logic of these approaches in his decisions. The purpose of choosing a case that is undecided (at the time of this writing) is to explore and flesh out the actual decision-making process of both Justices and their constitutional theories, rather than merely critiquing their decisions and holdings in a case that has already been adjudicated. This exploration is particularly useful because it allows one to decipher how these approaches are similar and different in interpreting the Constitution.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2018-12-14T11:44:33Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Hugo Leonardo Abas Frazão.pdf: 1628242 bytes, checksum: 71dbfe7fe1de99b60eef62ee705ebfae (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-14T11:44:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Hugo Leonardo Abas Frazão.pdf: 1628242 bytes, checksum: 71dbfe7fe1de99b60eef62ee705ebfae (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-11-29 / The following dissertation proposes to analyze if it competes to the Supreme Federal Tribunal of Brazil - STF to endorse the modifications of the fundamental values (constitutional compromises) of the constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988. It searches to comprehend the role of moderator of the quoted Court in relation to the national politicaldemocratic manifestations producing precedents that recognize, validate and, exceptionally, even create transitions of the constitutional compromises, aiming to represent the evolution of society. The development of this work is by means of a deductive approach that utilizes research of bibliographic reviews. The main objective of this dissertation is to analyze the phenomenon of modification of the constitutional compromises of the Major Law in force in Brazil and the special role of the Supreme Court in this process. Therefore, this work divides in three chapters, each being in charge of reaching a specific goal. The first one is dedicated to the studies of the origins of the judicial constitutionalism by the perspective of the Comparative Law, investigating the possibility of developing a central concept (subjective) for the constitutional justice, dedicated to affirm the preponderance of the legal control regarding the politics control in the ambit of the democratic Countries, in addition to proposing important advancements to the STF as the curator of Brazil’s constitution. The second one proposes to ascertain to which point, nature and degree the constitution allows a political actuation (politicity) of the STF destined to protect achievements originated from the concept of material democracy, such as existing rights already consecrated in the Constitution’s texts and as in relation to the apprehension of “new rights”. The third one investigates the deprecation of the possibility of modifications, followed by the Tribunal, to review the “spirit” of the Brazilian Constitution, under perspective of the Living Constitution Theory, altering constitutional compromises according to the political interests of the society, without, although, to break the legal regimen in force. It specially highlights the STF’s situation towards the majoritarian democracy and the preservation of the immutable clauses (art. 60, §4º, CRFB/88). In this sense, prosecution of the adaptability of the constitutional text to the current social reality happens through the actuation of the Constitutional Tribunal as a reader of the social aspirations, under perspective of the primacies ranked in the Major Law in Force in Brazil / A presente dissertação propõe-se analisar se compete ao Supremo Tribunal Federal do Brasil apoiar modificações quanto aos valores fundamentais (compromissos constitucionais) da Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Buscou-se compreender o papel moderador do citado Tribunal em relação às manifestações político-democráticas nacionais, produzindo precedentes que reconhecem, validam e, excepcionalmente, até criam transições dos compromissos constitucionais, visando a representar a evolução da sociedade. O desenvolvimento do estudo dá-se por meio de uma abordagem dedutiva, que utiliza pesquisas de revisão bibliográfica e documental. O objetivo geral da dissertação é analisar o fenômeno da modificação dos compromissos constitucionais da Lei Maior vigente no Brasil e o especial papel da Corte Suprema nesse processo. Para tanto, o trabalho foi dividido em três capítulos, ficando cada um encarregado de alcançar um objetivo específico. O primeiro dedica-se ao estudo das origens do constitucionalismo judicial à luz do Direito Comparado, investigando a possibilidade de se desenvolver um conceito central (subjetivo) para a Justiça Constitucional, dedicado a afirmar a preponderância do controle jurídico em relação ao político no âmbito dos países democráticos, além de propor importantes avanços ao STF enquanto curador da Constituição do Brasil. O segundo se propõe a averiguar até que ponto (natureza e grau) a Constituição admite uma atuação política (politicidade) do STF destinada a proteger conquistas oriundas do conceito de democracia material, tanto quanto a direitos já consagrados no texto da Constituição quanto em relação a apreensão de “novos direitos”. O terceiro volta-se à depreensão da possibilidade de modificações, acompanhadas pelo Tribunal, revisarem o “espírito” da Constituição brasileira à luz da teoria da Constituição Viva, alterando compromissos constitucionais conforme o interesse político da sociedade, sem, contudo, interromper o regime jurídico vigente. Em especial, destaca-se a situação do STF perante a democracia majoritária e a preservação das cláusulas pétreas (art. 60, §4º, CRFB/88). Neste sentido, a persecução da adaptabilidade do texto constitucional à realidade social atual perfazse através da atuação do Tribunal Constitucional como leitor dos anseios sociais, à luz dos primados elencados na Lei Maior em curso no Brasil

Substantive due process is one of the most cherished and elusive doctrines in American constitutional jurisprudence. The understanding that the Constitution of the United States protects not only specifically enumerated rights, but also broad concepts such as “liberty,” “property,” and “privacy,” forms the foundation for some of the Supreme Court’s most impactful—and controversial—decisions. This thesis explores the constitutional merits and politicizing history of natural rights jurisprudence from its application in Dred Scott v. Sandford to its recent evocation in Obergefell v. Hodges. Indeed, from slavery to same-same sex marriage, substantive due process has played a pivotal role in shaping our nation’s laws and destiny: But was it ever intended to? This paper first examines the legal arguments in favor of substantive due process to determine whether the judiciary was designed to be the “bulwark” of natural as well as clearly scribed law. Then, employing a novel framework to measuring judicial politicization, the thesis tracks the doctrine’s application throughout its most prominent case studies. Often arriving at nuanced conclusions, we observe that the truth is more often painted in some gradation of grey than in black or white.

Les juges de la Cour Suprême des États-Unis et la notion de constitution vivante.Une constitution écrite peut-elle évoluer au cours du temps et s’adapter aux besoins et aux valeurs évolutives de la société, sans pour autant être révisée formellement ? Et si oui, qu’en est-il du texte constitutionnel ? Devant ces interrogations, la notion de constitution vivante vise à résoudre le paradoxe du changement matériel de la Constitution sans modification du texte. Elle est sans aucun doute un topos – qui ne manque pas de susciter des critiques,notamment celle de la théorie dite « originaliste » - de la pensée constitutionnelle américaine, un concept mobilisé, en l’occurrence, pour justifier la cause de la réforme juridique et sociale. Elle a été développée,durant le XXe siècle, principalement par des juges de la Cour Suprême américaine qui ont fourni une approche stimulante et fertile de la nature de la Constitution. La notion de constitution vivante exprime donc une conception évolutive de la Loi suprême, qui saurait, par sa flexibilité et sa fonctionnalité,s’adapter au changement de circonstances. Dans ce cadre, elle a été instrumentalisée afin de surmonter la rigidité de la procédure de révision formelle prescrite par l’article V de la Constitution. Cette notion est dès lors porteuse de la tension entre la permanence du texte et l’évolution du droit constitutionnel positif. Pour justifier ce décalage entre la forme et le fond, les juges défenseurs de la constitution vivante ont toujours traité le texte comme un « document vivant », qui doit être lu à la lumière des valeurs évolutives et des idéaux partagés par le peuple américain. / The Justices of the United States Supreme Court and the notion of the livingConstitutionCan a written constitution evolve over time and adapt itself to the changingneeds and values of society, without being formally amended? If yes, thenwhat about the text? The notion of the living constitution tries to solve theparadox of constitutional change without modification of the text. It is acommon place notion – though subject to fierce criticism, notably byoriginalism - of U.S. constitutional thought, a concept invoked on manydifferent occasions in order to promote constitutional and social change. It hasbeen primarily elaborated by certain Justices of the Supreme Court of theUnited States during the 20th century, who have offered a stimulatingapproach of the nature of the U.S. Constitution. From their point of view, thenotion of the living constitution is based on the idea that the Constitutionevolves over time adapting itself to the ever changing circumstances. It thusleads to a theory of interpretation which treats the constitutional provisionsthat allocate powers or guarantee individual rights as flexible and vital.Furthermore, the notion of the living constitution has been used as a means ofovercoming the barrier of the amendment procedure as prescribed by Article Vof the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, it is marked by the tension between thepermanence of the text and the evolution of constitutional law. In order tojustify this evolution, the Justices who defend the notion of the livingConstitution, have always treated the text as a living document, which mustbe read in light of the aspirations and the high ideals of the American people.