A objetivação do controle concreto de constitucionalidade nas decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal

The independence of the United States and the revolutions that emerged in Europe in the eighteenth century led to the birth of the written constitution, with a mission to limit the power of the State and to ensure fundamental rights to citizens. Thus, the Constitution has become the norm and ultimate founding of the State. Because of this superiority felt the need to protect her, emerging from that constitutional jurisdiction, taking control of constitutionality of provisions his main instrument. In Brazil, the constitutionality control began with the Constitution of 1891, when "imported" the American model, which is named after incidental diffuse model of judicial review. Indeed, allowed that any judge or court could declare the unconstitutionality of the law or normative act in a concrete case. However, the Brazilian Constituent did not bring the U.S. Institute of stare decisis, by which the precedents of higher courts eventually link the below. Because of this lack, each tribunal Brazilian freely decide about the constitutionality of a rule, so that the decision took effect only between the parties to the dispute. This prompted the emergence of conflicting decisions between judicantes organs, which ultimately undermine legal certainty and the image of the judiciary. As a solution to the problem, was incorporated from the 1934 Constitution to rule that the Senate would suspend the law declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. With the introduction of abstract control of constitutionality, since 1965, the Supreme Court went on to also have the power to declare the invalidity of the provision unconstitutional, effectively against all without the need for the participation of the Senate. However, it remained the view that in case the Supreme Court declared the unconstitutionality of the fuzzy control law by the Senate would continue with the competence to suspend the law unconstitutional, thus the decision of the Praetorium Exalted restricted parties. The 1988 Constitution strengthened the abstract control expanding legitimized the Declaratory Action of Unconstitutionality and creating new mechanisms of abstract control. Adding to this, the Constitutional Amendment. No. 45/2004 brought the requirement of general repercussion and created the Office of Binding Precedent, both to be applied by the Supreme Court judgments in individual cases, thus causing an approximation between the control abstract and concrete constitutional. Saw themselves so that the Supreme Court, to be the guardian of the Constitution, its action should be directed to the trial of issues of public interest. In this new reality, it becomes more necessary the participation of the Senate to the law declared unconstitutional in fuzzy control by the Supreme Court can reach everyone, because such an interpretation has become obsolete. So, to adapt it to this reality, such a rule must be read in the sense that the Senate give publicity to the law declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, since mutated constitutional

Mediação como instrumento de desjudicialização das questões familiares: constitucionalização do Direito de Família

The Liberal Constitutionalism emerged from the late eighteenth century, a period of major revolutions (French and American), fruit of the struggle for libertarian rights. Although the time of the first written constitutions, these were linked to mere political letters, did not provide for fundamental human rights, as it is, so only on the state organization, structure of powers, division of powers of the state and some relations between state and individuals. There was a clear division between the civil codes and constitutions, those governing private relations and acted as barriers to non-state intervention. After the Second World War, the constitutions are no longer Letters political order to establish how the human person, in order to enshrine the fundamental rights, the primacy of constitutional principles and take their normative function against ordinary legislator. Constitutional evolution gave the name of contemporary constitutionalism, based on repersonalization or despatrimonialização of Private Law, ceasing the separation of legislative civil codes and constitutions, in favor of the protection of fundamental rights of the human person. And this tendency to the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988 brought higher ground the dignity of the human person, the epicenter axiological legal to govern private relations, including family law. The constitutionalization of family law motivates the adoption of desjudicialização family issues, so as to respect the direio intimacy, privacy, private autonomy and access to justice. Conflictual family relationships require special treatment, given the diversity and dynamism of their new compositions. The break in the family relationship is guided in varied feelings among its members in order to hinder an end harmonic. Thus, the judiciary, through performances impositive, not to honor the power of decision of the parties, as also on the structural problems faced to operate on these cases, the environment is not the most appropriate to offer answers to the end of family quarrels. Situation that causes future demands on the dissatisfaction of the parties with the result. Before the development of the Family Law comes the need to adopt legal institutions, which monitor the socio-cultural, and that promote an effective assistance to people involved in this kind of conflict. In obedience to the private autonomy, before manifestations of volunteers involved in family mediation, among autocompositivos instruments of conflict resolution, is indicated as the most shaped the treatment of family quarrels. Remaining, then the state a minimal intervention to prevent excessive intrusion into private life and personal privacy