For the past several years the issue of homosexual marriage has been at the forefront of an often intense debate in American political culture. Those who oppose the policy have, by and large, been in the majority. But in America, majority decisions are not automatically legal; such status is obtained only when policies are not in conflict with the Constitution. With that in mind, this paper aims to show how not allowing homosexual marriage can amount to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. To accomplish this I will first examine the main arguments presented against the policy by the defenders of “traditional” marriage and show how they fail. With the main arguments undercut, opponents of gay marriage must have either no real basis for their position, or make their arguments from within specific comprehensive (generally religious) doctrines- a phenomenon widespread enough to possibly constitute a violation of the first amendment.

It is the purpose of this Thesis to start an analysis of metaconstitutional review, understood as the process through which an entity such as a Constitutional Court or Supreme Court reviews the compliance of the acts of the Constituent with superior values or fills constitutional gaps with such values. This, in order to explain its separate nature from constitutional review, to determine whether it is compatible with the traditional conception of popular sovereignty as the ultimate source of power and the legitimizing element of the constitutional system and to determine whether or not metaconstitutional review could prevent social change by entrenching certain values.

It is the purpose of this Thesis to start an analysis of metaconstitutional review, understood as the process through which an entity such as a Constitutional Court or Supreme Court reviews the compliance of the acts of the Constituent with superior values or fills constitutional gaps with such values. This, in order to explain its separate nature from constitutional review, to determine whether it is compatible with the traditional conception of popular sovereignty as the ultimate source of power and the legitimizing element of the constitutional system and to determine whether or not metaconstitutional review could prevent social change by entrenching certain values.

A omissão inconstitucional é um tema desafiador. Este trabalho é dedicado a revisar os pressupostos de sua configuração, buscando explicar a possibilidade de a omissão implicar um estado de coisas inconstitucional. Presente violação massiva de direitos fundamentais decorrente de omissões caracterizadas como falhas estruturais, a Corte Constitucional colombiana declara a vigência de um estado de coisas inconstitucional. Ao assim decidir, a Corte passa a adotar remédios estruturais dirigidos a superar esse quadro negativo. Defendo aqui essa proposta como uma possibilidade para o Brasil e a atuação do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Trata-se, sem dúvida, de exemplo de ativismo judicial em sua dimensão estrutural. Todavia, esse comportamento judicial pode ser legítimo se presentes os pressupostos próprios do estado de coisas inconstitucional e o Tribunal formular decisões flexíveis, determinando a formulação e implementação de políticas públicas, mas deixando aos poderes políticos a tarefa de definir o conteúdo e os meios dessas políticas. O sistema carcerário brasileiro é exemplo de um estado de coisas inconstitucional que requer intervenção judicial da espécie. / The unconstitutional omission is a challenging subject. This research is intended to review the assumptions of its configuration, trying to explain how omission can become an unconstitutional state of fairs. If there is massive violation of human rights resulting from omissions typified like structural failures, the Colombian Constitutional Court declares an unconstitutional state of fairs. When does it, the Court embraces structural remedies towards to overcome the negative picture. I defend here this technical like a possibility for Brazil and Supremo Tribunal Federal.Thats an example of judicial activism in its structural dimension. However, this judicial attitude can be legitimate if involved the unconstitutional state of fairs assumptions and the Tribunal makes flexible decisions, ordering be created and implemented public policy, but allowing politic powers to shape the policies. Brazilian prison system is an example of unconstitutional state of fairs requests judicial intervention like this.

A omissão inconstitucional é um tema desafiador. Este trabalho é dedicado a revisar os pressupostos de sua configuração, buscando explicar a possibilidade de a omissão implicar um estado de coisas inconstitucional. Presente violação massiva de direitos fundamentais decorrente de omissões caracterizadas como falhas estruturais, a Corte Constitucional colombiana declara a vigência de um estado de coisas inconstitucional. Ao assim decidir, a Corte passa a adotar remédios estruturais dirigidos a superar esse quadro negativo. Defendo aqui essa proposta como uma possibilidade para o Brasil e a atuação do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Trata-se, sem dúvida, de exemplo de ativismo judicial em sua dimensão estrutural. Todavia, esse comportamento judicial pode ser legítimo se presentes os pressupostos próprios do estado de coisas inconstitucional e o Tribunal formular decisões flexíveis, determinando a formulação e implementação de políticas públicas, mas deixando aos poderes políticos a tarefa de definir o conteúdo e os meios dessas políticas. O sistema carcerário brasileiro é exemplo de um estado de coisas inconstitucional que requer intervenção judicial da espécie. / The unconstitutional omission is a challenging subject. This research is intended to review the assumptions of its configuration, trying to explain how omission can become an unconstitutional state of fairs. If there is massive violation of human rights resulting from omissions typified like structural failures, the Colombian Constitutional Court declares an unconstitutional state of fairs. When does it, the Court embraces structural remedies towards to overcome the negative picture. I defend here this technical like a possibility for Brazil and Supremo Tribunal Federal.Thats an example of judicial activism in its structural dimension. However, this judicial attitude can be legitimate if involved the unconstitutional state of fairs assumptions and the Tribunal makes flexible decisions, ordering be created and implemented public policy, but allowing politic powers to shape the policies. Brazilian prison system is an example of unconstitutional state of fairs requests judicial intervention like this.

The United States has a drug issue that is perpetually problematic. Efforts are being made on every level of government to reduce drug use and deter current and potential future users. Some of these efforts however are putting citizen's rights at risk in a manner that threatens the United States Constitution that hails over both the state and federal governments. My thesis will examine Florida's avant-garde approach to simplifying drug convictions through unprecedented legislation that has already been ruled unconstitutional on its face by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The decade long struggle will soon culminate in the Florida Supreme Court, and if found unconstitutional, could potentially impact thousands of inmates among other legal consequences. Through literature review and case study I will discuss the history of this issue and conclude by discussing possible rulings of the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Adkins, SC11-1878 (2D11-4559, 2nd DCA). In addition, I will analyze the case timeline that led to the legislative action which is being called into question in Adkins. I hypothesize that the ruling in Adkins will declare Florida's drug statute unconstitutional; however, I further presume that the currently incarcerated defendants will continue to serve their sentences virtually unaffected by the ruling, with some extraordinary exceptions. First, I will discuss the underlying legal premises, succeeded by an analysis of all pertinent case law and literature to assess the constitutionality of Florida's drug statute to further support my hypothesis. My goal for this thesis is to give perspective to the layperson as well as contribute to the statewide legal community through my organization of the subject, and analysis of case law.

Este trabalho tem por objeto a análise do papel desempenhado pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal no controle da omissão legislativa inconstitucional. Como principal objetivo, tem-se a demonstração da necessidade de superação da fórmula do legislador negativo, assumindo o STF postura ativa a bem da eficácia e da efetividade dos direitos fundamentais, sem que isso implique ofensa ao desenho constitucional de repartição e compartilhamento funcionais do exercício do poder estatal. Busca-se demonstrar, assim, a superação do paradigma do Estado Liberal e formalista, bem como a necessidade de assunção, pelo STF, de postura condizente com a sua função de Corte Suprema em um Estado Constitucional, outorgando unidade ao Direito e concretizando a Constituição por meio de atividade interpretativa. Pretende-se, além disso, revisar os conceitos tradicionais de dever de legislar e da consequente omissão legislativa inconstitucional, ilustrando-se por meio de quais instrumentos e técnicas o STF colabora (ou deve colaborar) na produção normativa e na concretização dos direitos fundamentais. Defende-se, por fim, a legitimidade democrática e jurídica da postura ativista do STF, se presente amplo diálogo institucional e social e se possibilitado o controle do exercício desses pressupostos por meio de justificação racional das decisões, afastando-se a Corte do arbítrio. / This research concerns about the role of the Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) – the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court – in regards to controlling the unconstitutional legislative omission. It aims to demonstrate the need to overcome the “negative legislator” tenet in order to the Court to admit an active perform, for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness of fundamental rights, without incurring offense to constitutional architecture of functional sharing and distribution of state power. We also intend to demonstrate the overcoming of the liberal state and its formal paradigm and the need of STF to assume consistent approach with his duty as a Supreme Court in the Rule of Law, granting unit to the Law and implementing the Constitution through interpretative activity. Moreover, we seek to review the traditional concepts of the duty to legislate and the consequent unconstitutional legislative omission, illustrating it through the demonstration of which legal instruments and techniques the Supreme Court can and must collaborate to improve the normative development and the fundamental rights concretion. Finally, we advocate the democratic and legal legitimacy of the judicial activism if involved in a wide-ranging institutional and social dialogue and if it allows the control of these assumptions through the rational justification of the judicial decisions, avoiding the Court´s arbitrariness.

A presente pesquisa buscou levantar os aspectos que envolvem o ativismo judicial no Brasil, desde os elementos estimuladores de sua prática pelos magistrados, até os efeitos de sua realização. O trabalho foi dividido em duas partes principais. Se inicia com uma breve digressão história, explicativa da importância da formação do Estado de Direito e da democracia, e do diploma legal que assegura esse sistema jurídico, a Constituição. Em seguida, demonstra a atuação da jurisdição constitucional, e seus limites impostos pela própria Magna Carta. E então, nesse cenário, avalia como o ativismo judicial se desenvolveu no Brasil, após a promulgação da Constituição Federal de 1988. Foram abordados os temas mais relevantes para o estímulo do ativismo judicial, quais sejam, as normas constitucionais com conceitos indeterminados, a vasta quantidade de direitos sociais previstos na Constituição Federal, pendentes de implementação legislativa e administrativa, o período histórico que vivemos denominado \"neoconstitucionalismo\" conferindo alto prestígio aos princípios para regularem os casos concretos, a análise da omissão inconstitucional por meio do mandado de injunção e da ação direta de inconstitucionalidade por omissão, e por fim, o controle concentrado de constitucionalidade, em especial, no que se toca aos efeitos da decisão nos processos objetivos. Na segunda parte do trabalho é realizada uma explicação sobre o Direito e desenvolvimento, e como seus estudos foram abordados por diversos autores, considerando a falta de uma sistematização teórica. Por fim, é feita uma análise do ativismo judicial, como praticado no Brasil, e seus impactos no processo de desenvolvimento econômico. / The present research investigated the aspects that involve the judicial activism in Brazil, from the stimulating elements of its practice by the magistrates, until the effects of its accomplishment. The work was divided into two main parts. It begins with a brief history, explaining the importance of the formation of the rule of law and democracy, and the legal diploma that ensures this legal system, the Constitution. Then demonstrates the performance of the constitutional jurisdiction, and its limits imposed by the Constitution itself. And then, in this frame, evaluated how judicial activism developed in Brazil after the promulgation of the Federal Constitution of 1988. The most relevant themes for the stimulus of judicial activism were discussed, which are, constitutional norms with indeterminate concepts, the vast number of social rights in the Federal Constitution, pending of legislative and administrative implementation, the historical period we call \"neoconstitutionalism\" conferring high prestige on the principles to regulate concrete cases, the analysis of the unconstitutional omission by mandatory injunction and direct action of unconstitutionality by omission(judicial review for the omission), and, finally, the control of constitutionality, especially, as regards the effects of the decision in the objective processes. In the second part of the work an explanation is made about law and development, and how its studies were approached by several authors, considering the lack of a theoretical systematization. Finally, an analysis of judicial activism, as practiced in Brazil, and its impacts on the process of economic development are made.

Civilinio proceso atnaujinimas yra išimtinė procesinė priemonė, padedanti užtikrinti žmogaus teisę į teismą. Jo tikslas yra pašalinti galimai neteisėtą teismo sprendimą, taip įvykdant teisingumą ir išvengiant tokio sprendimo pasekmių. Tačiau pažvelgus į LR Civilinio proceso kodeksą, matome, jog Lietuvoje nėra įtvirtinta galimybė atnaujinti procesą, kuomet LR Konstitucinis Teismas pripažįsta teisės aktą, kuriuo teismas rėmėsi priimdamas sprendimą civilinėje byloje, prieštaraujančiu LR Konstitucijai. Suformuota LR teismų praktika draudžia proceso atnaujinimą civilinėse bylose šiuo pagrindu, kadangi būtų pažeistas teisinių santykių stabilumo bei teisinių santykių subjektų teisių ir pareigų apibrėžtumo principai. Tačiau priešingai nei civilinėse bylose, administracinėse bylose proceso atnaujinimas šiuo pagrindu yra leidžiamas. Panagrinėję užsienio valstybių teisinį reguliavimą, matome, jog apie pusė Europos valstybių leidžia proceso atnaujinimą šiuo pagrindu civilinėse bylose bylose, o baudžiamosiose bylose – beveik visos nagrinėtos valstybės. Žmogaus teisių užtikrinimo svarbą civilinėse bylose pabrėžia Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas. Nors EŽTT laikosi nuomonės, jog proceso atnaujinimą riboja teisinio tikrumo principas, tačiau tam tikrais atvejais proceso atnaujinimas gali būti efektyviausia priemone atstatant teisingumą, kuris buvo paneigtas pažeidus žmogaus teises. Tuo tarpu LR Konstitucinis Teismas laikosi pozicijos, jog proceso atnaujinimas nagrinėjamu pagrindu yra... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Reopening of civil proceedings is an exclusive procedural measure, which helps to ensure a right to court. It‘s aim is to remove possibly unlawful court decision, thus delivering justice and avoiding consequences of such decision. Therefore, reopening of civil proceedings seeks to protect not only interests of private parties, but also public interest. However, if we look to Code of Civil procedure of the Republic of Lithuania, we can see a lack of possibility in Lithuania to reopen proceedings, when Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania declares that law applied in a specific case is in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Lithuanian case law does not allow reopening of proceedings in civil cases based on mentioned ground, because otherwise principles of stability of legal relations and certainty of rights and duties of subjects‘ legal relations would be breached. Contrary to civil cases, administrative cases may be reopened based on mantioned grounds. Moreover, administrative courts examine cases regarding damages, incurred due to unlawful actions of public administration bodies, and these cases may also be reopened based on mentioned ground, though they are civil cases. Therefore, administrative courts case law and general competence courts case law differs on the question regarding reopening of proceedings in civil cases, when Constituional Court of the Republic of Lithuania declares that law applied in a specific case is in conflict... [to full text]

Este trabalho tem por objeto a análise do papel desempenhado pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal no controle da omissão legislativa inconstitucional. Como principal objetivo, tem-se a demonstração da necessidade de superação da fórmula do legislador negativo, assumindo o STF postura ativa a bem da eficácia e da efetividade dos direitos fundamentais, sem que isso implique ofensa ao desenho constitucional de repartição e compartilhamento funcionais do exercício do poder estatal. Busca-se demonstrar, assim, a superação do paradigma do Estado Liberal e formalista, bem como a necessidade de assunção, pelo STF, de postura condizente com a sua função de Corte Suprema em um Estado Constitucional, outorgando unidade ao Direito e concretizando a Constituição por meio de atividade interpretativa. Pretende-se, além disso, revisar os conceitos tradicionais de dever de legislar e da consequente omissão legislativa inconstitucional, ilustrando-se por meio de quais instrumentos e técnicas o STF colabora (ou deve colaborar) na produção normativa e na concretização dos direitos fundamentais. Defende-se, por fim, a legitimidade democrática e jurídica da postura ativista do STF, se presente amplo diálogo institucional e social e se possibilitado o controle do exercício desses pressupostos por meio de justificação racional das decisões, afastando-se a Corte do arbítrio. / This research concerns about the role of the Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) – the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court – in regards to controlling the unconstitutional legislative omission. It aims to demonstrate the need to overcome the “negative legislator” tenet in order to the Court to admit an active perform, for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness of fundamental rights, without incurring offense to constitutional architecture of functional sharing and distribution of state power. We also intend to demonstrate the overcoming of the liberal state and its formal paradigm and the need of STF to assume consistent approach with his duty as a Supreme Court in the Rule of Law, granting unit to the Law and implementing the Constitution through interpretative activity. Moreover, we seek to review the traditional concepts of the duty to legislate and the consequent unconstitutional legislative omission, illustrating it through the demonstration of which legal instruments and techniques the Supreme Court can and must collaborate to improve the normative development and the fundamental rights concretion. Finally, we advocate the democratic and legal legitimacy of the judicial activism if involved in a wide-ranging institutional and social dialogue and if it allows the control of these assumptions through the rational justification of the judicial decisions, avoiding the Court´s arbitrariness.