Judicial interpretation or majority interpretation?
This paper revisits the longstanding question of who holds the final authority in constitutional matters. Specifically, it examines whether legislative interpretation of the Constitution prevails over judicial interpretation. Initially, the study aims to clarify certain issues that complicate the an...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | Uruguay |
| Institución: | Universidad de Montevideo |
| Repositorio: | REDUM |
| Idioma: | español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:redum.um.edu.uy:20.500.12806/2815 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://revistas.um.edu.uy/index.php/revistaderecho/article/view/1705 https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12806/2815 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | interpretación constitucional gobierno de los jueces competencias judiciales judicial review tribunales constitucionales constitutional interpretation judicial governance judicial competencies constitutional courts interpretação constitucional governo dos juízes competências judiciais tribunais constitucionais |
| Sumario: | This paper revisits the longstanding question of who holds the final authority in constitutional matters. Specifically, it examines whether legislative interpretation of the Constitution prevails over judicial interpretation. Initially, the study aims to clarify certain issues that complicate the analysis. It then focuses on the Expiry Law of the State's Punitive Claim, seeking answers to the aforementioned questions in relation to this legislation. Finally, it analyzes the issue with a general approach, trying to reach pragmatic and realistic conclusions, and not theoretical ones with no real viability or very few possibilities. |
|---|