On the Limits of Constitutional Adjudication (eBook)

Acknowledgements 8
Contents 10
Introduction 14
Part I: German and Brazilian Constitutional Cultures: Constitutional Adjudication and Activism 22
Chapter 1: An Approach to Decision-Making 23
1.1 Introduction 23
1.2 The Crucifix Case 24
1.3 The Cannabis Case 31
1.4 The Ellwanger Case 39
1.5 Final Words 49
Chapter 2: Balancing Within the Context of German Constitutionalism: The Bundesverfassungsgericht´s Shift to Activism 51
2.1 Introduction 51
2.2 Balancing Within the Triadic Framework of the Principle of Proportionality: A Brief Introduction 59
2.3 The Bundesverfassungsgericht in the Postwar Crisis: The New Representative of the Legal and Social Order 68
2.4 The Bundesverfassungsgericht´s Shift to Activism: From Subjective Rights to Objective Principles and the Consequences in Judicial Review 77
2.5 The Constitutional Scholarship Reaction Against the Bundesverfassungsgericht´s Shift to Politics and the Irrationalism of Balancing 88
2.6 Final Words 100
Chapter 3: Balancing Within the Context of Brazilian Constitutionalism: The Supremo Tribunal Federal´s Shift to Activism 102
3.1 Introduction 102
3.2 The Supremo Tribunal Federal in the Democratization Process: the Federal Constitution of 1988 and the Opening to Activism 107
3.3 Balancing in the Decisions of the Supremo Tribunal Federal: The Quest for Rationality in Decision-Making 128
3.4 Final Words 149
Part II: The Debate on the Rationality of Balancing 151
Chapter 4: The Aim to Rationalize Balancing Within the Context of Constitutional Courts´ Activism 152
4.1 Introduction: The Quest for a Systematization and Rationalization of Balancing 152
4.2 Robert Alexy´s Special Case Thesis (Sonderfallthese) 156
4.3 The Quest for the Rationality of Balancing: The Core of Robert Alexy´s Theory of Constitutional Rights 160
4.4 Final Words 174
Chapter 5: When Différance Comes to Light: Balancing Within the Context of Deconstruction 177
5.1 Introduction 177
5.2 Différance and the Political-Legal Realm of Deconstruction 182
5.2.1 Jacques Derrida and Différance 182
5.2.2 Différance and Constitutional Democracy: The Democracy to Come 190
5.2.3 The to Come in the Negotiation Between Constitutionalism and Democracy 198
5.2.4 Différance Within the Context of Decision-Making: The Negotiation Between Law and Justice and the First Insight into Legitimacy 202
5.3 Balancing Within the Context of Différance 210
5.3.1 Introduction 210
5.3.2 Balancing and the Logos of Correctness-Rationality 212
5.3.2.1 Previous Considerations 212
5.3.2.2 The First Metaphysics of the Logos of Correctness-Rationality: The Rationality and Correctness of the Analytical-Structural Framework 214
The Claim to Correctness as a Logos of Correctness 214
The Claim to Rationality as the Logos of Rationality and the Opening to The Claim to the Other´s Otherness 220
5.3.2.3 The Second Metaphysics of the Logos of Correctness-Rationality: Principles as Optimization Requirements, Principles as Moralizing Principles 226
5.3.3 Balancing and the Logos of Legitimacy 234
5.3.3.1 The Elementary Question of Legitimacy: Who Are the People? 234
5.3.3.2 The Logos of Legitimacy in the Structure of Balancing 247
5.4 Final Words 255
Chapter 6: When Procedures Towards Mutual Understanding Come to Light: Balancing Within the Context of Proceduralism 258
6.1 Introduction 258
6.2 The Claim to Coherence in Robert Alexy´s View: When Rights Lapse into General Practical Discourse 261
6.3 The Post-Metaphysical Response to Balancing as an Indispensable Instrument for Coherence: The Coherence and the Single Right Answer Within Democratic Proceduresof Opinion – and Will Formation 265
6.3.1 Introduction 265
6.3.2 Klaus Günther´s View: Coherence Through the Distinction Between Discourses of Justification and Discourses of Application 266
6.3.3 Ronald Dworkin´s View: Integrity in Legal Reasoning and the Claim to the Single Right Answer as a Response to Coherence 280
6.3.4 Jürgen Habermas´s View: Between Facts and Norms Within Democratic Procedures of Opinion - and Will Formation 294
6.3.4.1 Introduction 294
6.3.4.2 Communicative Action as an Intervenient Attitude in the World 295
6.3.4.3 Communicative Action in the Relationship Between Constitutionalism and Democracy 301
6.3.4.4 Communicative Action in the Relationship Between Justification and Application 309
6.4 The Metaphysics of Balancing from the Perspective of the Proceduralist Account 320
6.4.1 Introduction 320
6.4.2 The First Outcome: The Construction of an Axiological Content in the Structure of Principles 325
6.4.3 The Second and Third Outcomes: The Confusion between Discourses of Justification and Discourses of Application and the Loss of Protection of Minorities 330
6.4.4 The Fourth Outcome: The Relativization and Misunderstanding of the ``Single Right Answer´´ 335
6.4.5 The Final Analysis: The Problem of Rationality in Alexy´s Thinking 337
6.5 Final Words 341
Part III: The Concept of Limited Rationality 345
Chapter 7: Between Différance and Intersubjectivity: The Concept of Limited Rationality in Constitutional Democracy 346
7.1 Introduction 346
7.2 When Proceduralism and Deconstruction Are Placed Side by Side: The First Insight into the Limits of Reason 349
7.3 The Quest for Justice: A Dialogue Between Symmetry and Asymmetry? 355
7.3.1 Introduction 355
7.3.2 Is Really the Quest for Consensus Incompatible with Asymmetry? A Look Into Chantal Mouffe´s ``Agonist Model of Democracy´ 358
7.3.3 The Internal Dialects Between Modern Equality and Individuality: The Symmetry and Asymmetry in Christoph Menke´s Account 365
7.3.4 The Resolution as a Non-Resolution: The ``Irresolvable But Productive Tension´´ Between Différance and Intersubjectivity in the Quest for Justice 371
7.4 Final Words 375
Chapter 8: Between Différance and Intersubjectivity: The Concept of Limited Rationality in the Realm of Constitutional Adjudication 378
8.1 Introduction 378
8.2 The Concept of Limited Rationality in the Realm of Legal Adjudication: Intersubjectivity and Différance in a Complementary Fashion 380
8.3 The Concept of Limited Rationality In German and Brazilian Constitutional Realities 386
8.4 When the Concept of Limited Rationality Meets Constitutional Cases 398
8.4.1 Introduction 398
8.4.2 The Crucifix Case 399
8.4.3 The Cannabis Case 405
8.4.4 The Ellwanger Case 411
8.5 Final Words 417
Conclusion 419
Bibliography 425