Abstract
The Brazilian Constitution of the Republic of 1988 establishes in its 2nd article independence and harmony between the powers. Occurs in certain aspects, the institutional dialogue shows contours of tension. Concerning a more positive role of the judiciary, there are the chances of filing for a kind of petition (writ of mandamus) before the Supreme Court, on the grounds of possible violation of subjective public right of parliamentary not submit to unconstitutional legislative process, especially in cases where there are matters included in projects that violate laws immutable clauses and procedures that violate the rights of minorities. However, would this action be a dysfunction of the theory of separation of powers and the very pillars of a democratic republic? This study aims to understand the dialogue between the legislative and judicial function concerning the legislative ‘nomogenesis’. It is a doctrinal and jurisprudential research that presents as a criterion of originality transposition of the doctrine of excess of legislative power for the purpose of technical preventive judicial review of constitutionality by writ of mandamus. Still presents the possibility of overruling Precedent 266/STF of 13/12/1963. We conclude that the legisprudence can be an instrument of control and conformation of tense dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature, considering that the task of creating a knowledge of the law is polygenetic, especially regarding the custody of constitutional precepts.
Highlights
O presente trabalho tem por finalidade compreender o diálogo institucional entre o Poder Legislativo e o Poder judiciário, aqui representado por sua alta instância, o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), no que concerne à nomogênese legislativa.[1]
Concerning a more positive role of the judiciary, there are the chances of filing for a kind of petition before the Supreme Court, on the grounds of possible violation of subjective public right of parliamentary not submit to unconstitutional legislative process, especially in cases where there are CHEVITARESE, Aléssia de Barros
Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas, Brasília, v. 5, Número Especial, 2015 p. 500-517 matters included in projects that violate laws immutable clauses and procedures that violate the rights of minorities
Summary
O presente trabalho tem por finalidade compreender o diálogo institucional entre o Poder Legislativo e o Poder judiciário, aqui representado por sua alta instância, o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), no que concerne à nomogênese legislativa.[1]. 17 “O cabimento do mandado de segurança preventivo na defesa do direito público subjetivo do parlamentar de não se submeter a processo legislativo veiculador de proposição tendente a abolir cláusulas pétreas foi aventado, pela primeira vez, ainda sob a vigência da Constituição de 1967/69, no MS 20.257, impetrado por senadores da República contra a tramitação de Proposta de Emenda à Constituição que aumentava a duração dos mandatos os prefeitos, vice-prefeitos e vereadores municipais de 2 (dois) para 4 (quatro) anos .Nesse caso, julgado em 1980, os impetrantes eram os senadores Itamar Franco e Antonio Mendes Canale, os quais requeriam o impedimento da tramitação das Propostas de Emendas Constitucionais 51 e 52, ambas de 1980, assim como da Emenda 3 às referidas propostas.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
