Interpretativismo x não interpretativismo- prof. Senivaldo Júnior

Summary

This lecture by Senivaldo Júnior dives into the differences between interpretativism and non-interpretativism in U.S. constitutional law. Interpretativism stresses a strict adherence to the Constitution's text and the original intent of its framers, favoring conservative and restrictive judicial interpretations. In contrast, non-interpretativism advocates for judicial discretion, emphasizing the application of values like justice, equality, and freedom to adapt the Constitution to modern societal needs. The lecture explores these ideas in-depth, concluding with a question on the subject and clarifying that interpretativism favors a more restrictive and conservative approach to constitutional interpretation.

Takeaways

• 😀 **Interpretativismo** focuses on a conservative, strict interpretation of the Constitution, adhering closely to the text and the original intent of the framers.
• 😀 **Não interpretativismo** emphasizes judicial freedom in interpreting the Constitution, allowing for adaptation to contemporary societal changes.
• 😀 **Interpretativismo** restricts interpretation to the text of the Constitution, avoiding the inclusion of modern principles or values.
• 😀 **Não interpretativismo** applies constitutional values like justice, liberty, and equality to guide judicial interpretation, moving beyond the written text.
• 😀 The **interpretativist** approach avoids interpretations that might alter the original meaning of the Constitution, advocating for a stable, conservative application.
• 😀 **Não interpretativismo** suggests that the Constitution is a living document that should evolve with societal progress and changing needs.
• 😀 **Interpretativism** values the decisions made by elected lawmakers, arguing that their intentions should be prioritized over judicial interpretations.
• 😀 **Não interpretativismo** grants greater autonomy to judges, enabling them to interpret constitutional principles in a way that addresses modern circumstances.
• 😀 The **interpretativist** model emphasizes the preservation of the Constitution's original principles, resisting radical or progressive interpretations.
• 😀 The **não interpretativista** viewpoint challenges the idea of strictly adhering to the original intent, believing that the law must adapt to the evolving needs of society.

Q & A

What is the main focus of interpretativism in constitutional interpretation?

Interpretativism focuses on interpreting the Constitution strictly according to its text and the original intent of its framers, maintaining a conservative approach to avoid modern or progressive changes.

What is a key feature of non-interpretativism in constitutional interpretation?

Non-interpretativism allows for a more flexible and autonomous interpretation, where judges apply constitutional values and principles that adapt to contemporary societal needs, going beyond the literal text.

How does interpretativism approach the Constitution in relation to judicial interpretation?

Interpretativism emphasizes a limited interpretation of the Constitution, where judges should strictly adhere to the written text and its explicitly stated or clearly implied principles, avoiding external considerations or modern values.

What does non-interpretativism suggest about the role of values and principles in constitutional interpretation?

Non-interpretativism incorporates values such as justice, liberty, and equality into constitutional interpretation, allowing for interpretations that reflect moral, philosophical, and contemporary concerns.

What is meant by the Constitution being a 'living document' according to non-interpretativists?

Non-interpretativists view the Constitution as a 'living document,' meaning its interpretation should evolve over time to address modern issues and ensure the protection of fundamental rights in changing societal contexts.

How do interpretativists view the relationship between the Constitution and societal change?

Interpretativists are resistant to using contemporary societal changes to modify constitutional interpretation, as they believe the Constitution should remain true to the original intent of its framers and should not be altered by current trends.

What role do judges play in the interpretativist approach to constitutional interpretation?

In the interpretativist approach, judges are expected to interpret the Constitution based strictly on its text and the original intentions of the framers, without incorporating modern social, political, or moral considerations.

What are some key criticisms of the interpretativist approach?

Critics of interpretativism argue that it is too rigid and does not account for the evolving needs of society. They suggest that it limits judicial discretion and may fail to protect individual rights in contemporary contexts.

How do non-interpretativists view the role of the judiciary in relation to legislative actions?

Non-interpretativists believe that judges should have the flexibility to interpret the Constitution beyond the original text, potentially overriding legislative actions if they conflict with fundamental constitutional values, aiming to ensure justice and protect individual rights.

What is the key difference between interpretativism and non-interpretativism regarding judicial interpretation?

The key difference lies in their approach to judicial interpretation: interpretativism limits judges to the text and original intent of the Constitution, while non-interpretativism allows judges to consider contemporary values and societal changes in their interpretations.