Statutory Reversal as a Possible Dialectic Interpretation of Constitutions

Abstract

From the recognition of the universality of Human Rights, the insertion of norms of a material nature in the world constitutions and the creation of constitutional courts to control the performance of the Executive and Legislative powers, the Western countries have been experiencing a growing activism of these cuts and an active participation of the Judiciary in the attribution of meaning to contemporary constitutions. This phenomenon, made possible by the authorization of the judicial review, is defended by the constitutionalists who understand the irreversibility of the judicialization and the relevance of the jurisdictional role for the realization of fundamental rights, but criticized by those who fear that the excess of power in the hands of the judges violates precepts Of Western democracy and lead to judicial supremacy. The jurisdictional action for the interpretation of the Constitution makes possible the dialogue between powers so that the meaning of the constitutional norm is more in keeping with popular opinion and with the guarantee of positive fundamental rights - which is also the will of the people. As a feasibility of this dialogue, the statutory reversal is one of the most expressive forms of dialogue between the powers, once representing the legislative overcoming of judicial decisions. In this sense, it should be a modality of constitutional dialogue in which the representative power finds ways of telling the Judiciary that its decision of invalidity is outdated or in disagreement with popular opinion, which could lead the judges to a review of their own Understanding of constitutional interpretation.