國立虎尾科技大學 |

The Legal Nature of the Legislative Process = = A natureza juridica do processo legislativo.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	The Legal Nature of the Legislative Process =/
其他題名:	A natureza juridica do processo legislativo.
其他題名:	Natureza juridica do processo legislativo.
作者:	Barroso da Graca, Luis Otavio.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (226 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-01, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International86-01A.
標題:	Law. -
電子資源:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798383212301

The Legal Nature of the Legislative Process = = A natureza juridica do processo legislativo.
Barroso da Graca, Luis Otavio.

The Legal Nature of the Legislative Process =A natureza juridica do processo legislativo.Natureza juridica do processo legislativo. - 1 online resource (226 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-01, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of California, Berkeley, 2024.

Includes bibliographical references

In this text, I argue that the legislative process has a legal nature, as opposed to its more apparent political facet, and that breaches of procedural lawmaking rules are incompatible with such a characterization. To defend such a viewpoint, I approach the topic in three parts.The first part addresses legislatures' procedural rules' force of law, navigating through U.S. and Brazilian cases. Against views that take legislative procedural rules as non-mandatory and merely coordinating tools, I develop my argument upon Hans Kelsen's and H.L.A. Hart's theorizations and state that these provisions belong to (hard) law. Hence, though legal interpretation challenges may blur the distinction between the political and legal facets, I affirm that legislative procedures have the force of law and, as such, are binding.The second part deals with justification and overseeing mechanisms. I argue that there are several reasons why lawmakers should abide by the legislative procedural rules. First, it is a matter of the rule of law, meaning that the participants in the lawmaking process have the right to play according to the pertinent provisions. Second, compliance with the established procedures safeguards participation and the flow of diverse opinions and, thus, democratic representativeness. Third, rules' observance fosters transparency, shedding light on a bill and its motives. Finally, I state that compliance with procedural rules should result from enforcing tools managed by legislators and third parties, such as non-partisan officers in legislatures and, under some restraints, the judiciary.The third part addresses a specific situation: the enactment of executive decrees, provisional measures, directives, or anything similar, with the force of law, to address emergencies. I defend that the misuse or abuse of these expedited lawmaking instruments is incompatible with the legal nature of the legislative process. First, I analyze the ancient Roman Republic's approach to the circumvention of serious menaces and the theories of John Locke, Carl Schmitt, and Santi Romano in this regard. Then, I assess how governments in Brazil, Italy, and the United States usually take advantage of those instruments not to address threats but to bypass the burdens of ordinary legislative procedures. To avoid such an outcome, I argue that legislatures should enhance their oversight capacity under emergencies or pressing situations while simultaneously providing the judiciary with more specific reviewing standards.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2024

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798383212301Subjects--Topical Terms:

671705
Law.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Decree lawsIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

The Legal Nature of the Legislative Process = = A natureza juridica do processo legislativo.
LDR:06898ntm a22004457 4500 001 1152474
005 20241203090605.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 250605s2024 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798383212301
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI31244223
035 $a AAI31244223
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Barroso da Graca, Luis Otavio. $3 1479476
245 1 4 $a The Legal Nature of the Legislative Process = $b A natureza juridica do processo legislativo.
246 3 1 $a Natureza juridica do processo legislativo.
264 0 $c 2024
300 $a 1 online resource (226 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-01, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Gould, Jonathan S.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of California, Berkeley, 2024.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a In this text, I argue that the legislative process has a legal nature, as opposed to its more apparent political facet, and that breaches of procedural lawmaking rules are incompatible with such a characterization. To defend such a viewpoint, I approach the topic in three parts.The first part addresses legislatures' procedural rules' force of law, navigating through U.S. and Brazilian cases. Against views that take legislative procedural rules as non-mandatory and merely coordinating tools, I develop my argument upon Hans Kelsen's and H.L.A. Hart's theorizations and state that these provisions belong to (hard) law. Hence, though legal interpretation challenges may blur the distinction between the political and legal facets, I affirm that legislative procedures have the force of law and, as such, are binding.The second part deals with justification and overseeing mechanisms. I argue that there are several reasons why lawmakers should abide by the legislative procedural rules. First, it is a matter of the rule of law, meaning that the participants in the lawmaking process have the right to play according to the pertinent provisions. Second, compliance with the established procedures safeguards participation and the flow of diverse opinions and, thus, democratic representativeness. Third, rules' observance fosters transparency, shedding light on a bill and its motives. Finally, I state that compliance with procedural rules should result from enforcing tools managed by legislators and third parties, such as non-partisan officers in legislatures and, under some restraints, the judiciary.The third part addresses a specific situation: the enactment of executive decrees, provisional measures, directives, or anything similar, with the force of law, to address emergencies. I defend that the misuse or abuse of these expedited lawmaking instruments is incompatible with the legal nature of the legislative process. First, I analyze the ancient Roman Republic's approach to the circumvention of serious menaces and the theories of John Locke, Carl Schmitt, and Santi Romano in this regard. Then, I assess how governments in Brazil, Italy, and the United States usually take advantage of those instruments not to address threats but to bypass the burdens of ordinary legislative procedures. To avoid such an outcome, I argue that legislatures should enhance their oversight capacity under emergencies or pressing situations while simultaneously providing the judiciary with more specific reviewing standards.
520 $a Neste texto, defendo que o processo legislativo tem uma natureza juridica, em oposicao a sua faceta politica mais aparente, e que as violacoes das regras procedimentais de elaboracao de normas sao incompativeis com essa caracterizacao. Para defender esse ponto de vista, discuto o tema em tres partes.A primeira parte aborda a forca normativa das regras aplicaveis ao processo legislativo, navegando por casos dos Estados Unidos e do Brasil. Contra abordagens que consideram tais regras como nao obrigatorias ou como meros instrumentos de coordenacao, desenvolvo meu argumento com base nas teorias de Hans Kelsen e H.L.A. Hart e afirmo que esses dispositivos procedimentais pertencem ao Direito. A partir dai, embora os desafios de interpretacao juridica possam obscurecer a distincao entre suas facetas politica e juridica, defendo que os procedimentos legislativos tem forca de lei e, como tal, sao vinculantes.A segunda parte trata dos mecanismos de justificacao e supervisao. Argumento que existem varias razoes pelas quais os legisladores devem obedecer as regras procedimentais legislativas. Primeiro, sob a logica do Estado de Direito, qualquer participante do processo de elaboracao de normas tem o direito de planejar suas acoes parlamentares de acordo com as disposicoes pertinentes a esse processo. Segundo, a observancia dos procedimentos estabelecidos garante a participacao dos envolvidos e o fluxo de opinioes diversas e, portanto, a representatividade democratica. Terceiro, o respeito as regras promove a necessaria transparencia, lancando luzes sobre as proposicoes legislativas e suas motivacoes. Por fim, argumento que a aderencia as regras procedimentais deve resultar de ferramentas de execucao geridas pelos legisladores e por terceiros, como servidores sem vinculacao partidaria e, sob algumas restricoes, o judiciario.A terceira parte aborda uma situacao especifica: a promulgacao de decretos-leis, medidas provisorias, diretrizes executivas ou qualquer coisa similar, com forca de lei, para lidar com emergencias. Defendo que o uso indevido ou abusivo desses instrumentos de elaboracao expedita de normas e incompativel com a natureza juridica do processo legislativo. Primeiro, analiso a abordagem da antiga Republica Romana para lidar com graves ameacas e as teorias de John Locke, Carl Schmitt e Santi Romano relativas a circunstancias extraordinarias. Em seguida, avalio como os governos no Brasil, Italia e Estados Unidos costumam aproveitar-se desses instrumentos nao para lidar com ameacas, mas para contornar os encargos dos procedimentos legislativos ordinarios. Com o proposito de evitar tal resultado, sugiro que os corpos legislativos poderiam aumentar sua capacidade de supervisao em situacoes de emergencia ou urgencia, ao tempo em que forneceriam ao judiciario parametros mais especificos de controle.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2024
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Law. $3 671705
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 559771
650 4 $a Political science. $3 558774
650 4 $a Public administration. $3 562473
650 4 $a Public policy. $3 1002398
653 $a Decree laws
653 $a Lawmaking rules
653 $a Executive directives
653 $a Legislative procedures
653 $a Provisional measures
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0422
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0630
690 $a 0617
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a University of California, Berkeley. $b Law. $3 1185446
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 86-01A.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31244223 $z click for full text (PQDT)