Acts of Providence: The religious latency surrounding and shaping Marbury v. Madison and the Status-Denkschrift
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11117/rdp.v21i110.7970Resumo
Franklin D. Roosevelt recommended that “like the Bible, [the Constitution] ought to be read again and again.” Gustav Heinemann portrayed the Grundgesetz as a “great offering,” whose words must become flesh. Nevertheless, does this have any bearing on constitutional adjudication? Although presidents didn’t – and more and more don’t – shy about handling their respective constitutions as bibles, have justices and constitutional scholars proceeded otherwise? Common wisdom may answer yes, they did. The aim of my study is to show that this not quite the case. I pursue it in reference to two, leading liberal democratic constitutional courts, the US Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court. This happens in three parts: (1) I will engage with court architecture, understood as a testimony to each institution’s articulation for self-justification and self-empowerment; (2) the semantic consecration of constitutional adjudication especially vis-à-vis politics, as it took place in the struggles over what was implied by the innovations pushed forward in the contexts of Marbury v. Madison, on the one hand, and of the German Constitutional Court’s Status-Denkschrift, on the other; (3) and legal-methodological debates on the relationship between the Christian Bible and constitutional provisions that run in parallel and connection to these two landmark events. My findings point out that, in face of how disruptive the differentiation between law and politics was and is, constitutional actors in 19th century United States and 20th century Germany frequently, if not invariably, relied upon religious resources to embed their positions.
Downloads
Referências
ALEMANHA. Bunderministerium der Justiz. Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 1949. Dísponível em: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html.
ALEMANHA. Bundestag. Protokolle Parlamentarischer Rat, Bd. 9, Dokumentennummer 2. Zweite Sitzung d. Plenums, 8. 9. 1948), 18, 66.
ALEMANHA. Bundesverfassungsgericht. Jahrbericht 2021 [Annual Report 2021]. 2021, p. 11.
APELT, Willibalt. Zum Bedeutungswandel der Gleichheitssatzes [On the change of meaning of the principle of equality]. In: Deutsche Rechts-Zeitschrift [German Law Journal], 1946.
AQUINAS, Thomas. Summa Theologiae: Suppl. Tertiae partis, art. I, ad sec., Quaestio 85 De claritate corporum beatorum.
ARLINGHAUS, Franz-Josef. Mittelalterliche Rituale in systemtheoretischer Perspektive: Übergangsriten als basale Kommunikationsform in einer stratifikatorisch-segmentären Gesellschaft [Medieval rituals from a systems theory’s perspective: rites of passage as basic communicative form in a stratified-segmented society]. In: Becker, Frank. Geschichte und Systemtheorie: Exemplarische Fallstudien [History and Systems Theory: Exemplary case studies]. [s.l: s.n.], 2001.
BACHOF, Otto. Verfassungswidrige Verfassungsnormen? [Unconstitutional Constitutional norms?]. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1951.
BADURA, Peter. Verfassung, Staat und Gesellschaft in der Sicht des Bundesverfassungsgericht [Constitution, State and Society from the perspective of the Federal Constitutional Court]. In: Bundesverfassungsgericht und Grundgesetz: Festgabe aus Anlass des 25 jährigen Bestehens des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, [The Federal Constitutional Court and the Basic Law: Commemorative publication on occasion of the 25 years of the Federal Constitutional Court], v. 2, 1976.
BANNER, Stuart. When Christianity Was Part of the Common Law. In: Law and History Review, vol. 16, no. 1, 1998.
BILDER, Mary Sarah. The corporate origins of judicial review. The Yale law journal, v. 116, n. 3, p. 502, 2006.
BILDER, Mary Sarah. The transatlantic constitution: Colonial legal culture and the empire. England: Harvard University Press, 2009.
BLACKSTONE, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. [s.l: s.n.], v. I, 1765, p. 257.
BLUMENBERG, Hans. Arbeit am Mythos [Work on myth]. [s.l: s.n.], 2021, p. 180.
_____________. Die Legitimität der Neuzeit [The Legitimacy of the Modern Age]. [s.l: s.n.], 2021.
BÖCKENFÖRDE, Ernst-Wolfgang. Demokratie als Verfassungsprinzip [Democracy as a constitutional principle]. In: ISENSEE, Josef; KIRCHHOF, Paul. Handbuch des Staatsrechts. 1987, p. 894.
BONHOEFFER, Dietrich. Christus, die Wirklichkeit und das Gute. Christus, Kirche und Welt [Christ, the reality, and the Good. Christ, Church and the World]. In: TÖDT, Ilse et al. Ethik, Werke v. 6, ed. 1992, p. 41.
_____________.Die Geschichte und das Gute [Erste Fassung] [The History and the Good, first version]. In: TÖDT, Ilse et al. Ethik, Werke v. 6, ed. 1992, p. 226-227.
_____________. Sanctorum Communio. Werkausgabe. Joachim von Soosten, v. 1, 2005.
BOWEN, Catherine Drinker. Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention. [s.l:s.n.], 1966.
BREDEKAMP, Horst. Politische Ikonologie des Grundgesetzes [Political iconology of the Basic Law]. In: STOLLEIS, Michael. Herzkammern der Republik: Die Deutschen und das Bundesverfassungsgericht [The cardiac chambers of the Republic: The Germans and the Federal Constitutional Court]. [s.l.]: C.H.Beck, 2011.
BRENNAN, Willian. The Hastings Law Journal. San Francisco: UC Law School, v. 37, 1986, p. 427
CALVIN, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Tradução: John Allen. [s.l: s.n.]. v. III, p. 394.
CHATZIATHANASIOU, Konstantin. Die Status-Denkschrift des Bundesverfassungsgerichts als informaler Beitrag zur Entstehung der Verfassungsordnung [The memorandum of the Federal Constitutional Court on its status as a informal contribution to the emergence of the constitutional order]. Rechtswissenschaft (RW), Vol. 11, 2020, pp. 145–169.
CLAVERO, Bartolomé. Why American Constitutional History is not yet written. In: Quaderni Fiorentini per la storia del pensiero giuridico moderno, v. 36., 2007, p. 1445.
COING, Helmut. Die Rezeption des römischen Rechts in Frankfurt am Main [The reception of roman law in Frankfurt am Main]. [s.l.]: Verlag Vittorio Klostermann, 1962.
COKE, Sir Edward. Calvin’s Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377. In: The Reports of Sir Edward Coke, In: Thirteen Parts, A New Edition, vol. 4, p. 1. London: Joseph Butterworth and Son, 1826.
COOLEY, Thomas M. A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations which rest upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union. 1868, p. 472.
CORWIN, Edward. The “Higher Law” Background of American Constitutional Law. In: Harvard Law Review 2-3 (1928-1929). [s.l: s.n.], 1929, p. 42.
_____________. The Doctrine of Judicial Review: Its Legal and Historical Basis and Other Essays. London: Routledge, 2014.
_____________; LOSS, Richard (Ed.). Corwin on the Constitution: The Foundations of American Constitutional and Political Thought, the Powers of Congress, and the President’s Power of Removal. New York: Cornell University Press, 1981, p. 158.
DAMLER, Daniel. Konzern und Moderne [The corporation and the modern]. [s.l.]: Vittorio Klostermann, 2016, p. 266-272.
DAWSON, John P. The Oracles of the Law. [s.l.]: William s Hein & Company, 1986.
ee also Mark Tushnet, Constitutional Hardball, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. (2004) 523.
FALLON, Richard. Judicial Supremacy, Departmentalism, and the Rule of Law in a Populist Age. Texas Law Review, v. 96, n. 3, 2018, p. 487.
_____________. Stare decisis and the Constitution: an essay on Constitutional Methodology. N.Y.U. Law Review, v. 76, n. 2, 2001, p. 570.
FELZ, Sebastian. Die Historizität der Autorität oder: Des Verfassungsrichters neue Robe. In: Jahrbuch Junge Rechtsgeschichte 2010. München: [s.n.], 2011, p. 109–117.
FISCHER TAYLOR, Katherine. The Material Setting and Culture of the Early Supreme Court. In: The United States Supreme Court: the pursuit of justice. Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2005.
FRANKENBERG, Günter. Comparative Constitutional Studies: Between Magic and Deceit. [s.l.]: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018, p. 162.
GEIGER, Willi. Ergänzende Bemerkungen zum Bericht des Berichterstatters zur Stellung des Bundesverfassungsgericht [Complementing remarks on the report of the reporting judge about the position of Federal Constitutional Court]. Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart, 1957, p. 137-142.
GERHARDT, Michael J. The Lives of John Marshall. William & Mary Law Review, v. 43, n. 4., 2001-2002, p. 1399.
GORSKI, Philip. American Covenant: A History of Civil Religion from the Puritans to the Present. Journal of the American Academy of Religion: American Academy of Religion, v. 85, n. 4, p. 1160–1163, 2017.
GREEN, Steven K. Inventing a Christian America: The Myth of the Religious Founding. 2015, p. 211, p. 219-227.
GÜNTHER, Frieder. Denken vom Staat her: Die bundesdeutsche Staatsrechtslehre zwischen Dezision und Integration 1949-1970 [Thinking from the State: the Federal German Doctrine of State Law between decision and integration 1949-1970]. [s.l: s.n.], 2004.
HAMBURGER, Philip. Law and Judicial Duty. V. 72, Geo. Wash. L. Rev, 2003, p. 1.
HANS, Nawiasky. Ungeschriebenes Verfassungsrecht. Aussprache [Debate], VVdStL v. 10, 1951.
HATCH, Nathan O. The Democratization of American Christianity. [s.l:s.n.], 1989.
HEGEL, Friedrich. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts [Ontlines of the Philosophy of Law]. In: Werke. v. 7, 1979, [§ 224] p. 375.
HEINEMANN, Gustav. Unser Grundgesetz ist ein grosses Angebot. Rechtspolitische Schriften [Our Basic Law is a great offering. Legal-political writings]. [s.l: s.n.], 1989.
HELMUT COING. Grundzüge der Rechtsphilosophie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993.
HENNE, Thomas; RIEDLINGER, Arne. Das Lüth-Urteil aus (rechts-)historischer Sicht. Die Konflikte um Veit Harlan und die Grundrechtsjudikatur des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [The Lüth Case out of a (legal)-historical perspective. The conflict over Veit Harlan and the judicatur of fundamental rights of the Federal Constitutional Court], [s.l: s.n.], 2005.
HENNIS, Wilhelm. Verfassung und Verfassungswirklichkeit [Constitution and constitutional reality]. In: Die missverstandene Demokratie [The misunderstood democracy]. Freiburg (im Breisgau), Basel, Wien: Herder, 1973.
HESSE, Konrad. Die normative Kraft der Verfassung [The normative force of the Constitution]. In: KRÜPER, Julian; PAYANDEH, Mehrdad; SAUER, Heiko. Konrad Hesses normative Kraft der Verfassung [Konrad Hesse’s The normative force of the Constitution]., 2019.
HÖPKER-ASCHOFF, Hermann. Schreiben des Präsidenten des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Vom 13. Oktober 1952. Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart, 1957, p. 137-142
JAEGER, Falk. Transparenz und Würde: Das Bundesverfassungsgericht und seine Architektur [Transparency and Dignity: The Federal Constitutional Court and its architecture]. [s.l: s.n.], 2014.
Jefferson, Thomas. From Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright. 5 June 1824, available at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-4313.
JEFFERSON, Thomas. Letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820, and Letter to Judge William Johnson, March 4, 1823. In: FORD, Paul Leicester (Ed.). The Works of Thomas Jefferson. v. 12. 1904, p. 177-178.
JESTAEDT, Matthias et al. Das entgrenzte Gericht: eine kritische Bilanz nach sechzig Jahren Bundesverfassungsgericht [The unbounded Court: a critical evaluation after the sixty years of the Federal Constitutional Court]. Deutschland: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2019.
Katherine Fischer Taylor, First Appearances: The Material Setting and Culture of the Early Supreme Court, in The United States Supreme Court: the pursuit of justice (Christopher Tomlis, ed., 2005) esp. 378-380
KAU, Marcel. United States Supreme Court und Bundesverfassungsgericht: Die Bedeutung des United States Supreme Court für die Errichtung und Fortentwicklung des Bundesverfassungsgericht [United States Supreme Court and the Federal Constitutional Court: The meaning of the United States Supreme Court for the establishment and development of the Federal Constitutional Court]. [s.l.]: Springer Verlag, 2007.
KIRCHHOF, Paul; ISENSEE, Josef. Die Identität der Verfassung in ihren unabänderlichen Inhalten [The identity of the Constitution in its immutable contents]. In: Handbuch des Staatsrechts [Handbook of State Law], 1987, p. 779.
KORIOTH, Stefan. Evangelisch-theologische Staatsethik und juristisch Staatslehre in der Weimarer Republik und der frühen Bundesrepublik [Evangelical-theological ethics of the State and the legal doctrine of the State in the Weimar Republic and the early Federal Republic]. In: PASCALE, Cancik et al. Konfession im Recht [Confession in law]. [s.l.]: Verlag Vittorio Klostermann, 2009, p. 142.
KÖRNER, Sabine. Transparenz in Architektur und Demokratie: Die Plenarbereiche des Deutschen Bundestags in Bonn und Berlin seit 1949 [Transparency in Architecture and Democracy: The Plenary of the German Federal Parliament in Bonn and Berlin since 1949]. [s.l: s.n.], 2003.
LANGE, Felix. Der Dehler-Faktor: Die widerwillige Akzeptanz des Bundesverfassungsgerichts durch die Staatsrechtslehre. In: Der Staat, Band 56. 2017, Heft 1, S. 77–105.
LARSON, Victoria. “Man of the Mountain”: Seeing Jefferson at Monticello. In: Journal for eighteenth-century studies 3, v. 42, n. 3, 2019, p. 283.
LEIBHOLZ, Gerhard. Bericht des Berichterstatters des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 21. März 1952 [Report of the Reporting Judge of the Federal Constitutional Court from 21 March 1952]. 6 Jahrbuch des Öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart [Yearbook of Public Law of the Present]. [s.l: s.n.], 1957, p. 121, 122, 126.
_________________. Der Struktur der neuen Verfassung [The Structure of the new Constitution]. In: Die Verwaltung [The Administration], 1948.
_________________.. Verfassungsrecht und Verfassungswirklichkeit [Constitutional law and Constitutional Reality]. In: Die Repräsentation in der Demokratie. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1973.
LEMBCKE, Oliver. Hüter der Verfassung. 2007, p. 105-166.
LEVINSON, Sanford. Constitutional faith. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2011.
_________________; BALKIN, Jack M. What Are the Facts of Marbury v. Madison?. Constitutional Commentary, 2003, p. 255.
LIEBOLD, Sebastian; Frank Schale. Neugründung auf alten Werten? Konservative Intellektuelle und Politik in der Bundesrepublik, [A new foundation based on old values? Conservative intellectuals and politics in the Federal Republic]. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2017.
LLEWELLYN, Karl N. The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals. [s.l: s.n.], 2016.
LUHMANN, Niklas. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft [The society of society]. [s.l: s.n.], 1997.
_________________. Die Religion der Gesellschaft [The religion of society]. [s.l: s.n.], 2002.
_________________. Funktion der Religion [The function of religion]. [s.l: s.n.], 1999.
_________________. Gesellschaftliche Struktur und semantische Tradition [Social structure and semantic tradition]. In: Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik. v. 1, [s.l: s.n.], 1993.
LUTHER, Martin. Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen [On the Freedom of the Christian man]. In: Luther lesen: Die zentralen Texte [Reading Luther: The main texts]. [s.l.]: The Office of the Vereinigten Eangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands, 2017, p. 57.
MAUNZ, Theodor et al. Grundgezetz Kommentar [Commentary of the Basic Law]. [s.l: s.n.], 1958.
MAUNZ, Theodor. Deutsches Staatsrecht [German State Law]. [s.l:s.n.], 1951.
MAUS, Ingebord. Justiz als gesellscaftliches Über-Ich. [s.l: s.n.], 2018.
McCLELLAN, James. Joseph Story and the American Constitution. [s.l: s.n.], 1990.
MITCHEL, Maria D. The Origins of Christian Democracy: Politics and Confession in Modern Germany. [s.l: s.n.], 2012.
MORGAN, Edmund S. Visible Saints: The History of a Puritan idea. [s.l: s.n.], 1963, v. 67, p. 91-95, 101.
MÜLLER, Jan-Werner. Verfassungspatriotismus [Constitutional patriotism]. Deutschland: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2010.
NEWMYER, R. Kent. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story: Statesman of the Old Republic. [s.l: s.n.], 1985.
PARSONS, Lynn H. The birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828. Oxford University Press: 2011.
RADIER, Karola. The Leibholz-Schmitt connection's formative influence on Bonhoeffer's 1932-33 entry into public theology. Stellenbosch Theological Journal (STJ), Stellenbosch, v. 4, n. 2, p. 683-702, 2018. Disponível em: http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2413-94672018000200032&lng=en&nrm=iso>.
ROSENMAN, Samuel. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt. v. 6, [s.l: s.n.], 1941, p. 124.
SCHLÖGL, R. Alter Glaube und moderne Welt: Europäisches Christentum im Umbruch 1750-1850 [Old Faith and Modern World: The European Christianity in Upheaval 1750-1850]. Deutschland: S. Fischer, 2013.
____________. Historiker, Max Weber und Niklas Luhmann. Zum schwierigen (aber möglicherweise produktiven) Verhältnis von Geschichtswissenschaft und Systemtheorie. [Historians, Max Weber and Niklas Luhmann. About the dififcult (but possibly productive) relationship between historical sciences and systems theory]. Soziale Systeme, v. 7, n. 1, p. 23–45, mai. 2001.
SCHLÖGL, Rudolf. Anwesende und Abwesende: Grundriss für eine Gesellschaftsgeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit [Attendees and Absentees: Outline for a social history of the Early Modern Age]. [s.l.]: Konstanz University Press, 2014.
SCHMIDT, Kurt Dietrich. Der ‘Ansbacher Ratschlag’ zu der Barmer ‘Theologischen Erklärung‘ [The Ansbacher Counsel to the Barmer Theological Explanation]. In: SCHMIDT, Kurt Dietrich. Die Bekenntnisse und grundsätzlichen Äußerungen zur Kirchenfrage [The Confessions and fundamental statements on Church Affairs]. Das Jahr 1934, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, v. 2, 1935, p. 102–104.
SCHNEUER, Ulrich. Probleme und Verantwortungen der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit der Bundesrepublik [Problems and responsibilities of constitutional adjudication in the Federal Republic]. In: Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, 1952.
SCHOLDER, Klaus. Die evangelische Kirche in der Sicht der nationalsozialistichen Führung bis zum Kriegsausbruch [The evangelical church from the perspective of the National Socialist leadership until the outburst of the war]. Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte [Quarterly for Contemporary History], 16. Jahrg., 1. H., 1968, p. 15-35.
SEARLE, George N. The Supreme Court of the United States in 1853-54. American Law Register, 1854. In: WARREN, Charles. The Supreme Court in United States History. v. II., 1922, p. 475.
SHULMAN, George. American prophecy: race and redemption in American political culture. Minneapolis: University Of Minnesota Press, 2008.
SMEND, Rudolf. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht [The Federal Constitutional Court] in Staatsrechtliche Abhandlungen [Treatises on State Law]. Ed. 4, 2010, p. 583 e 588.
____________. Verfassung und Verfassungsrecht [Constitution and Constitutional Law]. [s.l:s.n.], 1928, p. 204.
SÖRGEL, Werner. Konsensus und Interessen: Eine Studie zur Entstehung des Grundgesetzes [Consensus and Interest: A study on the emergence of the Basic Law]. [s.l: s.n.], 1985.
STERN, Klaus. Das Staatsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [The State Law of the Federal Republic of Germany], v. 1, 1984.
STOLLEIS, Michael. Die Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer: Bemerkungen zu ihrer Geschichte [The Association of German State Law Scholars: Remarks over its story]. In: Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft [Critical Quarterly Journal for Legislation and Legal Science], v. 80, n. 4, 1997.
____________. Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland [History of Public Law in Germany]. Deutchland: Verlag C.H. Beck, v. 4, n. 1945-1990, 2012, p. 25-32.
____________. Judicial Review, Administrative Review, and Constitutional Review in the Weimar Republic. Ratio Juris, v. 16, n. 2, p. 266–280, jun. 2003.
STÖLZEL, Adolf. Die Entwicklung der gelehrten Rechtsprechung [The development of the learned adjudication]. [s.l: s.n.], 1901.
STORY, Joseph. Christianity: A part of the Common Law. In: SCHWARTZ, Mortimer D.; HOGAN, John C. Joseph Story: A Collection of Writings by and about an Eminent American Jurist. 1959, p. 182.
____________. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. v. I. [s.l: s.n.], 1851.
____________. History and Influence of the Puritans in Miscellaneous Writings of Joseph Story. William Story, [s.l: s.n.], 1852.
____________. Life and Letters of Joseph Story: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and Dane Professor of Law at Harvard University. William Story, v. I, 1857, p. 57, 86, 94, 419, 441, 512, 533.
____________. The Value and Importance of Legal Studies. In: Miscellaneous Writings of Joseph Story. William Story, 1852, p. 517.
THOMA, Richard. Rechtsgutachten betr. Die Stellung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [Legal opinion concerning the position of the Federal Constitutional Court]. 6 Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart, 1957, 161-193, esp. 165-168.
____________. Über Wesen und Erscheinungsformen der modernen Demokratie [On the essence and the manifestations of modern Democracy]. Bonn: F. Dümmler, 1948.
THOMAS, Kendall. The Eclipse of Reason: A rhetorical reading of Bowers v. Hardwick. Virginia Law Review, vol. 73, 1993, p. 1805.
TIMES, The New York. “Error” Found in Supreme Court, But It’s in the Art of a Door Panel; Scene Depicts Marshall Handing to a Fellow-Justice the Famed Madison Decision, but Jurist Represented Is Story and He Was Not Appointed to Bench Until 8 Years Later. The New York Times, 5 jul. 1936. Disponível em: https://www.nytimes.com/1936/07/05/archives/error-found-in-supreme-court-but-its-in-the-art-of-a-door-panel.html
TRIBE, Laurence; MATZ, Joshua. Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution. [s.l: s.n.], 2014, p. 126.
TUORI, Kaius. Empire of law: Nazi Germany, exile scholars and the battle for the future of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
TUSHNET, Mark. Constitutional Hardball. J. Marshall L. Rev., n. 37, 2004, p. 523.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. New York Supreme Court. People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. R. 290, 1811.
____________________________. Supreme Court. The Bronze Doors: Information Sheet. Office of the Curator, 11 Aug. 2021. Disponível em: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/BronzeDoors_11-8-2021.pdf
____________________________. US Supreme Court. Bowers v. Hardwick. 478 U.S. 186, 1986.
____________________________. US Supreme Court. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States. 143 U.S. 467, 1892.
____________________________. US Supreme Court. Vidal v. Girard’s Executors. 43 U.S. 127, 1844.
V. HIPPEL, Ernst. Ungeschriebenes Verfassungsrecht [Unwritten Constitutional Law], Bericht [Report]. In: VVdStL. Berlin: VVdStL, 1952.
V. MANGOLDT, Hermann. Die Grundrechte. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung [The Public Administration], [s.l: s.n.], 1949.
VAN DER WALT, Johan. When One Religious Extremism Unmasks Another: Reflections on Europe’s States of Emergency as a Legacy of Ordo-Liberal De-hermeneuticisation. New Perspectives, v. 24, n. 1, p. 79–101, mar. 2016.
VISMANN, Cornelia. Medien der Rechtsprechung [Media of adjudication]. Deutschland: S. Fischer, 2011, p. 40.
WEILER, J. H. H. The State “über alles”: Demos, Telos and the German Maastricht Decision. [s.l:s.n.], 1995. Disponível em: https://jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/95/9506ind.html.
WESEL, Uwe. Der Gang nach Karlsruhe: Das Bundesverfassungsgericht in der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik [The road towards Karlsruhe: The Federal Constitutional Court in the History of the Federal Republic]. Karl Blessing Verlag, 2004. p. 413. International journal of constitutional law, v. 4, n. 4, p. 752–759, 1 out. 2006.
WHITTINGTON, K. E. Presidential challenges to judicial supremacy and the politics of constitutional meaning. Polity, v. 33, n. 3, p. 365–395, 2001.
WOOD, Gordon S. The Origin of Judicial Review Revisisted, or How The Marshall Court Made More Out of Less. V. 56, Wash. & Lee L. Rev.,1999, p. 787
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2024 Direito Público
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
O(s)/A(s) autores(as) dos manuscritos submetidos concorda(m) com as regras a seguir:
1) Todos os autores e autoras participaram do trabalho, são responsáveis pelas ideias e conceitos nele emitidos e atestam sua conformidade com os princípios éticos exigidos.
2) Todos os autores e autoras concordam com a forma final do trabalho e em ceder os direitos para publicação nos canais de publicação da Escola de Direito do IDP.
3) Todos os autores e autoras informam que o manuscrito é de sua autoria e assumem a responsabilidade pelo trabalho, declarando que a obra a ser publicada não infringe quaisquer direitos de propriedade intelectual de terceiros.
3.1) Em caso de submissão simultânea, além da reprovação imediata do artigo e comunicação ao(s) respectivo(s) periódico(s), a Revista Direito Público se reserva o direito de não receber novas submissões de todos os autores implicados pelo prazo de 2 (dois) anos, contado a partir da data de ciência do fato.
4) Todos os autores e autoras autoriza(m) a edição de seu trabalho e cede(m) à Escola de Direito do IDP os direitos de autor para reproduzir, editar e publicar ou veicular o citado trabalho em qualquer forma midiática, resguardada a autoria, em particular sob forma digital, em arquivo eletrônico online na Internet, bem como armazená-los em seu repositório de acordo com o desenvolvimento do processo editorial. Esta concessão não terá caráter oneroso para a Escola de Direito do IDP, não havendo remuneração sob qualquer modalidade pela utilização do referido material, tendo este o caráter de colaboração científica.
