Direito Constitucional na era da proporcionalidade (mas não na América?)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48143/RDAI.26.canasPalavras-chave:
Colisões normativas - Princípio da Proporcionalidade - Ponderação - Tiers of scrutinyResumo
Nos EUA e na Europa, os direitos fundamentais têm raízes comuns. Todavia, os quadros dogmáticos e teóricos que presidiram ao seu desenvolvimento constitucional foram diversos nessas duas geografias. Uma das dimensões em que a diferença é mais patente é a que se reporta ao modo como é enfrentado o problema das colisões entre posições jurídicas subjetivas fundamentais e outros bens, interesses ou valores. Na Europa, foram desenvolvidos standards como o princípio da proporcionalidade, que a doutrina e a jurisprudência constitucionais americanas só muito residualmente reconhecem. Em contrapartida, nos EUA, competem entre si estratégias de balancing e/ou de aplicação de tiers of scrutiny. O presente ensaio pretende averiguar se o princípio da proporcionalidade pode ser adaptado aos quadros dogmáticos e teóricos dos EUA e, em caso afirmativo, se isso criaria um ambiente constitucional mais vantajoso para os direitos constitucionais.
Referências
ALEINIKOFF, Alexander T. – “Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing”, Yale Law Journal, vol. 96 (abril, 1987), pp. 943-1005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/796529
ALONSO GARCIA, Enrique – La interpretación de la Constitución, Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, Madrid, 1984.
ARROYO, Luiz – “Tailoring the Narrow Tailoring Requirement in the Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Cases”, Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 58 (2010), pp. 648 -684.
ASHUTOSH, Bhagwat – “The Test that Ate Everything: Intermediate Scrutiny in First Amendment Jurisprudence”, University of Illinois Law Review, vol. 3 (2007), pp. 783-838.
AYRES, Ian - “Narrow Tailoring”, Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 1496 (1996). Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: [http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1496].
AYRES, Ian / FOSTER, Sydney – “Don’t Tell, Don’t Ask: Narrow Tailoring After Grutter and Gratz”, John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Working Papers, Paper 287 (2005). Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: [http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/lepp_papers/287].
BARAK, Aharon – Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and their Limitations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139035293
BARNETT, Randy – “Scrutiny Land”, Michigan Law Review, vol. 106 (2008), pp. 1479 ss.
BASTRESS JR, Robert M. – “El principio de “la alternativa menos restrictiva” en Derecho constitucional norteamericano”, CDP, vol. 5 (1998), pp. 239-254. Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: [http://revistasonline.inap.es/index.php?journal=CDP&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=517].
BEATTY, David M. – The Ultimate Rule of Law, Oxford University Press, USA, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199269808.001.0001
BENNETT, Robert W. – ““Mere” Rationality in Constitutional Law: Judicial Review and Democratic Theory”, California Law Review, vol. 67 (1979), pp. 1049 ss. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3480008
BERMANN, George A. – “The Principle of Proportionality”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 26, 1 (1978), pp. 415–432, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/26.suppl1.415
BICE, Scott H. – “Rationality Analysis in Constitutional Law”, Minnesota Law Review, vol. 65, 2 (1980-1981), pp. 1-62.
BOMHOFF, Jacco – Balancing Constitutional Rights: The Origins and Meanings of Postwar Legal Discourse, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013., DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107360280
BRANCO, Paulo Gustavo Gonet – Juízo de ponderação na jurisdição constitucional, Editora Saraiva, São Paulo, 2009.
CANAS, Vitalino – O Princípio da Proibição do Excesso na Conformação e no Controlo de Atos Legislativos, Almedina, Coimbra, 2017.
CHEMERINSKY, Erwin – Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies, 4.ª ed., Wolters Kluwer, New York, 2011.
____. “Rethinking State Action”, Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 80 (1985), pp. 503-557.
COFFIN, Frank N. – “Judicial Balancing: The Protean Scales of Justice”, New York University Law Review, vol. 63 (1988), pp. 16-42.
COHEN-ELIYA, Moshe / PORAT, Iddo - Proportionality and Constitutional Culture, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139134996
____. “The Hidden Foreign Law Debate in Heller. The Proportionality Approach in American Constitutional Law”, San Diego Law Review, vol. 46 (2009), pp. 367 ss.
CORREIA, Fernando Alves - Justiça Constitucional, 2.ª ed., Almedina, Coimbra, 2018,
CROSS, Frank B. - “The Error of Positive Rights”, UCLA Law Review, vol. 48 (2001), pp. 857- 924.
DWORKIN, Ronald – Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1977.
____. “Rights as trumps”, in Jeremy Waldron (ed.), Theories of Rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984, pp 152-167.
ELY, John Hart – “Flag Desecration: A case study in the roles of categorization and balancing in First Amendment analysis”, HLR, vol. 88 (1975), pp. 1482-1508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1340121
FAIGMAN, David L. – “Madisonian Balancing: A Theory of Constitutional Adjudication”, Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 88, n.º 2 (1994), pp. 641-694. Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1869&context=faculty_scholarship
FALLON, Richard H. – “Strict Judicial Scrutiny”, UCLA Law Review, vol. 54 (2007), pp. 1267-1337.
____. The Nature of Constitutional Rights. The Invention and Logic of Strict Judicial Scrutiny, Cambridge University Press, 2019.
FARRELL¸ Robert C. – “Legislative purpose and equal protection’s rationality”, Villanova Law Review, vol. 37 (1992), pp. 1 ss.
_____. “Successful Rational Basis Claims in the Supreme Court from the 1971 Term. Through Romer v. Evans”, Indiana Law Review, vol. 32 (1999), pp. 356 ss.; DOI: https://doi.org/10.18060/3344
_____. “The Two Versions of Rational-basis Review and Same-sex Relationships”, Washington Law Review, vol. 86 (2011), pp. 281-329.
FRANTZ, Laurent – “The First Amendment in the Balance”, Yale LJ, vol. 71 (1962), pp. 1424-1450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/794500
FRASE, Richard S. – “Excessive Prison Sentences, Punishment Goals, and the Eighth Amendment: “Proportionality” Relative to What?”, Minnesota Law Review, vol. 89 (2005), pp. 571 ss.
GARGARI, Rodrigo Diez – “Principio de proporcionalidad, colisión de principios y el nuevo dicurso de la Suprema Corte” Revista Mexicana de Derecho Constitucional, vol. 26 (jan-jun 2012), pp. 66-103. Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: [https://revistas.juridicas.unam.mx/index.php/cuestiones-constitucionales/article/view/5986/7927].
GERHARDT, Michael / Rowe Jr., Thomas D. – Constitutional Theory: Arguments and Perspectives, Michie Company, Charlottesville, 1993; 4.ª ed, 2013.
GUNTHER, Gerald - “Foreword: In Search of Evolving Doctrine on a Changing Court: A Model for a Newer Equal Protection”, Harvard Law Review, vol. 86 (1972-1973), pp. 1 ss. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1339852
GOTTLIEB, Stephen E. - “Compelling Governmental Interests: An Essential But Unanalysed Term in Constitutional Adjudication”, Boston University Law Review, vol. 68 (1988), pp. 917-978.
GREENE, Jamal – “The Rule of Law as a Law of Standards”, The Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 99 (2011), pp. 1289 ss.
Idem – “Rights as Trumps?”, Harvard Law Review, vol. 132, 1 (novembro 2018), pp. 28-132.
GUNN, T. Jeremy – “Deconstructing Proportionality in Limitations Analyses», Emory International Law Review, vol. 19 (2005), pp. 465-498.
HABERMAS, Jürgen – Facticidad y validez. Sobre el derecho y el Estado democrático de derecho en términos de teoria del discurso, 2.ª ed., Editorial Trotta, Madrid, 2000 (trad. de Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1992 e 1994).
HARVARD LAW REVIEW – “Let the End be Legitimate: Questioning the Value of Heightened Scrutiny’s Compelling and Important-Interest Inquiries”, Harvard Law Review, vol. 129 (2016), pp. 1406-1427. Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: [http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1406-1427-Online.pdf].
HENKIN, Louis – “Infallibility under Law: Constitutional Balancing», Columbia Law Review, vol. 78, n.º 5 (Jun. 1978), pp. 1022-1049. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1121890
HOLMES, Stephen / SUNSTEIN, Cass R. - The Cost of Rights: Why Liberty Depends on Taxes, W. W. Norton, New York, 1999.
HUQ, Aziz Z. – “Tiers of Scrutiny in Enumerated Powers Jurisprudence”, The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 80 (2013), pp. 575-656. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2284250
JACKSON, Vicki C. – “Constitutional Law in an age of Proportionality”, Yale Law Journal, vol. 124 (2015), pp. 3094-3196. Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/h.3094.Jackson.3196_fteiok9v.pdf
_____. “Being Proportional about Proportionality”, Constitutional Commentary, vol. 21 (2004), pp. 803-859.
_____. Constitutional Engagement in a Transnational Era, Oxford University Press, 2010.
KARST, Kenneth – “Rational Basis”, Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, Macmillan, New York, 2000, pp. 2121-2122.
KELSO, R. Randall – “Standards of Review under the Equal Protection Clause and Related Constitutional Doctrines Protecting Individual Rights: the “Base Plus Six “Model and Modern Supreme Court Practice”, Journal of Constitutional Law, vol. 4 (2002), pp. 225-259. Acessível (outubro 2022) em: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1396&context=jcl
KLATT, Mathias / MEISTER, Moritz – The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199662463.001.0001
KUMM, Mathias - “The Idea of Socratic Contestation and the Right to Justification: The Point of Rights based Proportionality Review”, Law and Ethics of Human Rights, vol. 4, 2 (2010), pp. 142–175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1938-2545.1047
LASSER, Mitchel - ““Lit. Theory” Put to the Test: A Comparative Literary Analysis of American Judicial Tests and French Judicial Discourse”, Harvard Law Review, vol. 111 (1998), pp. 689 ss. Acessível (outubro 2022) em: [https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1514&context=facpub]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1342204
LINDE, Hans – “Due Process of Lawmaking”, NebraskaLaw Review, vol. 55 (1975), pp. 197 ss.
MAYER, Matthias – Untermaß, Übermaß und Wesensgehaltgarantie: die Bedeutung staatlicher Schutzpflichten für den Gestaltungsspielraum des Gesetzgebers im Grundrechtsbereich, Nomos, Baden-Baden, 2005.
MCFADDEN, Patrick – “The Balancing Test”, Boston College Law Review, vol. 29 (1988), pp. 585-656.
MERTEN, Detlef – “Der Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatz”, in Detlef Merten / Hans-Jürgen Papier / Peter Axer / Wilfried Berg, Handbuch der Grundrechte in Deutschland und Europa, vol. III, Grundrechte in Deutschland, C.F. Müller, Heidelberg, 2009.
MICHELMAN, Frank – “The Compelling Idea of Social & Economic Rights: Reciprocating Perturbations in Liberal and Democratic Constitutional Visions”, in Helena Alviar Garcia, Karl Klare, Lucy Williams (eds.), Social & Economic Rights in Theory and Practice: A Critical Assessment, Routledge, 2014.
MÖLLER, Kai – “Proportionality and the Rights Inflation”, in Huscroft / Miller / Webber (eds.), Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2014, pp. 155-172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107565272.010
______. “U.S. Constitutional Law, Proportionality, and the Global Model“, in Vicki C. Jackson /Mark Tushnet, Proportionality New Frontiers, New Challenges, Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 130-147. Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: [http://ssrn.com/abstract=2747222].
MUREINIK, Etienne – “A Bridge to Where? Introducing the Interim Bill of Rights”, South African Journal on Human Rights, vol. 10:1 (1994), pp. 31-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.1994.11827527
NIMMER, Melville B. – “The Right to Speak from Times to Time: First Amendment Theory Applied to Libel and Misapplied to Privacy”, California Law Review, vol. 56 (1968), pp. 935-967. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3479467
NOTE, «Legislative purpose, rationality, and equal protection», Yale Law Journal, vol. 82 (1972), pp. 123 ss. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/795254
NOVAIS, Jorge R. – As restrições aos direitos fundamentais não expressamente autorizadas pela Constituição, Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, 2003; 2.ª ed., 2012.
_____. Direitos Fundamentais e Justiça Constitucional em Estado de Direito Democrático, Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, 2012.
NOZICK, Robert - Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Basic Books, New York, 1974.
PHILIPPE, Xavier – “Le contrôle de proportionnalité exercé par les jurisdictions étrangères: l’exemple du contentieux constitutionnel”, Revista Studii Juridice Universitare, n.º 1-2 (2011), pp. 20-40.
PIRKER, Benedict – Proportionality Analysis and Models of Judicial Review, Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, 2013.
POWE JR, Lucas A. – “Evolution to Absolutism: Justice Douglas and the First Amendment”, Columbia Law Review, vol. 74 (1974), pp. 371 ss. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1121761
ÖRÜCÜ, Esin - “The Core of Rights and Freedoms: The Limit of Limits», in Tom Campbell e outros Human Rights, From Rethoric to Reality, Basil Backwell, Oxford, 1986.
RISTROPH, Alice – “Proportionality as a Principle of Limited Government”, Duke Law Journal, vol. 55 (2005), pp. 262-331.
ROBINSON, Greg / Toni Robinson – “Korematsu and Beyond: Japanese Americans and the Origin of Strict Scrutiny”, Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 29 (1985), pp. 29 ss.
RUBIN, Peter J. – “Reconnecting doctrine and purpose: a comprehensive approach to strict scrutiny after Adarand and Shaw”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 149, n.º 1 (nov. 2000), pp. 1-169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3312847
SCHAUER, Frederick - “A Comment on the Structure of Rights”, Georgia Law Review, vol. 27 (1993), pp. 415 -434.
_____. – “Freedom of Expression Adjudication in Europe and America: A Case Study in Comparative Constitutional Architecture”. Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: http://ssrn.com/abstract=668523 ou http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.668523 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.668523
SCHLINK, Bernhard - “Proportionality in Constitutional Law: why everywhere but here”, Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, vol. 22 (2012), pp. 291-302. Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: [https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1290&context=djcil].
SIEGEL, Stephen – “Origin of the Compelling State Interest and Strict Scrutiny”. Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: [http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1514].
_____. “The Death and Rebirth of the Clear and Present Danger Test”, in Alfred Brophy & Daniel Hamilton (eds.), Transformations in American Legal History: Essays in Honour of Professor Morton J. Horwitz, Harvard University Press, 2008, pp. 211-245.
SOLUM, Lawrence “Originalism and Constitutional Construction”, Fordham Law Review., vol. 82 (2013), pp. 453-537. Acessível em (outubro de 2022): [https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2310&context=facpub].
SPECE, Jr., Roy G. / YOKUM, David – “Scrutinizing Strict Scrutiny”, Vermont Law Review, vol. 40 (2015), pp. 285-351. Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: [http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/40VtLRev285-Spece.pdf]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2568800
STRUVE, Guy Miller – “The Less-Restrictive-Alternative Principle and Economic Due Process”, Harvard Law Review, vol. 80, n.º 7 (1967), pp. 1463-1488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1339363
SULLIVAN, E Thomas / Frase, Richard S. – Proportionality Principles in American Law: Controlling Excessive Government Actions, Oxford University Press, New York, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195324938.001.0001
SULLIVAN, Kathleen M. – “Post Liberal Judging: The Roles of Categorization and Balancing”, University of Colorado Law Review, vol. 63 (1992), pp. 293-317.
SUNSTEIN, Cass R. – “The Enduring Legacy of Republicanism”, in S. Elkin / K. Soltan (eds.), A New Constitutionalism, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1993, pp. 174 ss.
ŠUŠNJAR, Davor – Proportionality, fundamental rights, and balance of powers, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004182868.i-390
SWEET, Alec Stone – “All Things in Proportion? American Rights Doctrine and the Problem of Balancing», Emory Law Journal, vol. 60 (2011), pp. 797-875. Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: [https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/2369/Stone_Sweet_Submission_2_2010_Word.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y].
THORBURN, Malcolm – “Proportionality”. Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303691304_Proportionality
TRIBE, Laurence H. – AmericanConstitutional Law, Mineola, Foundation Press, New York, 1978 (2.ª ed., 1988).
_____. Constitutional Choices, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass) / Londres, 1985.
VOLOKH, Eugene – “Freedom of Speech, Permissive Tailoring and Transcending Strict Scrutiny”, U. Pennsylvania L. Rev., vol. 144, (1997), pp. 2417 ss. Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: [http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/scrutiny.htm] DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3312673
WEBBER, Gregoire C.N. – The Negotiable Constitution. On the Limitation of Rights, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511691867
WINKLER, Adam – “Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact: An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny in the Federal Courts”, Vanderbilt Law Review, vol. 59 (2006), pp. 793-871. Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: [http://ssrn.com/abstract=897360].
WHITE, G. Edward - “Historicizing Judicial Scrutiny”, South Carolina Law Review, vol. 57, 1 (2006). Acessível (outubro de 2022) em: [https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3668&ontexto=sclr].
WORMUTH, Francis / Harris Mirkin, - “The Doctrine of the Reasonable Alternative”, Utah Law Review, vol. 9 (1964), pp. 254 ss.
YOWELL, Paul – ”Proportionality in United States Constitutional Law”, in Liora Lazarus / Christopher McCrudden / Nigel Bowles (eds.), Reasoning Rights: Comparative Judicial Engagement, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2014, pp. 87-116.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista de Direito Administrativo e Infraestrutura | RDAI
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
(CC BY-NC-ND)
Este é um resumo (e não um substituto) da licença
Regras para publicação
Direitrizes Editoriais
Direitos e Deveres
Errata e Retratação
Preservação e Plagiarismo
Revisão e Avaliação
