Part Ⅰ German and Brazilian Constitutional Cultures： Constitutional Adjudication and Activism 3
1 An Approach to Decision-Making 3
1.1 Introduction 3
1.2 The Crucifix Case 4
1.3 The Cannabis Case 11
1.4 The Ellwanger Case 19
1.5 Final Words 29
2 Balancing Within the Context of German Constitutionalism： The Bundesverfassungsgericht’s Shift to Activism 31
2.1 Introduction 31
2.2 Balancing Within the Triadic Framework of the Principle of Proportionality： A Brief Introduction 39
2.3 The Bundesverfassungsgericht in the Postwar Crisis： The New Representative of the Legal and Social Order 48
2.4 The Bundesverfassungsgericht’s Shift to Activism： From Subjective Rights to Objective Principles and the Consequences in Judicial Review 57
2.5 The Constitutional Scholarship Reaction Against the Bundesverfassungsgericht’s Shift to Politics and the Irrationalism of Balancing 68
2.6 Final Words 80
3 Balancing Within the Context of Brazilian Constitutionalism： The Supremo Tribunal Federal’s Shift to Activism 83
3.1 Introduction 83
3.2 The Supremo Tribunal Federal in the Democratization Process： the Federal Constitution of 1988 and the Opening to Activism 88
3.3 Balancing in the Decisions of the Supremo Tribunal Federal： The Quest for Rationality in Decision-Making 109
3.4 Final Words 130
Part ⅡI The Debate on the Rationality of Balancing 135
4 The Aim to Rationalize Balancing Within the Context of Constitutional Courts’ Activism 135
4.1 Introduction： The Quest for a Systematization and Rationalization of Balancing 135
4.2 Robert Alexy’s Special Case Thesis (Sonderfallthese) 139
4.3 The Quest for the Rationality of Balancing： The Core of Robert Alexy’s Theory of Constitutional Rights 143
4.4 Final Words 157
5 When Differance Comes to Light： Balancing Within the Context of Deconstruction 161
5.1 Introduction 161
5.2 Differance and the Political-Legal Realm of Deconstruction 166
5.2.1 Jacques Derrida and Differance 166
5.2.2 Differance and Constitutional Democracy： The Democracy to Come 174
5.2.3 The to Come in the Negotiation Between Constitutionalism and Democracy 182
5.2.4 Differance Within the Context of Decision-Making： The Negotiation Between Law and Justice and the First Insight into Legitimacy 186
5.3 Balancing Within the Context of Differance 194
5.3.1 Introduction 194
5.3.2 Balancing and the Logos of Correctness-Rationality 196
5.3.3 Balancing and the Logos of Legitimacy 218
5.4 Final Words 239
6 When Procedures Towards Mutual Understanding Come to Light： Balancing Within the Context of Proceduralism 243
6.1 Introduction 243
6.2 The Claim to Coherence in Robert Alexy’s View： When Rights Lapse into General Practical Discourse 246
6.3 The Post-Metaphysical Response to Balancing as an Indispensable Instrument for Coherence： The Coherence and the Single Right Answer Within Democratic Procedures of Opinion - and Will Formation 250
6.3.1 Introduction 250
6.3.2 Klaus Gunther’s View： Coherence Through the Distinction Between Discourses of Justification and Discourses of Application 251
6.3.3 Ronald Dworkin’s View： Integrity in Legal Reasoning and the Claim to the Single Right Answer as a Response to Coherence 265
6.3.4 Jurgen Habermas’s View： Between Facts and Norms Within Democratic Procedures of Opinion - and Will Formation 279
6.4 The Metaphysics of Balancing from the Perspective of the Proceduralist Account 305
6.4.1 Introduction 305
6.4.2 The First Outcome： The Construction of an Axiological Content in the Structure of Principles 310
6.4.3 The Second and Third Outcomes： The Confusion between Discourses of Justification and Discourses of Application and the Loss of Protection of Minorities 315
6.4.4 The Fourth Outcome： The Relativization and Misunderstanding of the "Single Right Answer" 320
6.4.5 The Final Analysis： The Problem of Rationality in Alexy’s Thinking 322
6.5 Final Words 326
Part Ⅲ The Concept of Limited Rationality 333
7 Between Differance and Intersubjectivity： The Concept of Limited Rationality in Constitutional Democracy 333
7.1 Introduction 333
7.2 When Proceduralism and Deconstruction Are Placed Side by Side： The First Insight into the Limits of Reason 336
7.3 The Quest for Justice： A Dialogue Between Symmetry and Asymmetry？ 342
7.3.1 Introduction 342
7.3.2 Is Really the Quest for Consensus Incompatible with Asymmetry？ A Look Into Chantal Mouffe’s "Agonist Model of Democracy" 345
7.3.3 The Internal Dialects Between Modern Equality and Individuality： The Symmetry and Asymmetry in Christoph Menke’s Account 352
7.3.4 The Resolution as a Non-Resolution： The "Irresolvable But Productive Tension" Between Differance and Intersubjectivity in the Quest for Justice 358
7.4 Final Words 362
8 Between Differance and Intersubjectivity： The Concept of Limited Rationality in the Realm of Constitutional Adjudication 365
8.1 Introduction 365
8.2 The Concept of Limited Rationality in the Realm of Legal Adjudication： Intersubjectivity and Differance in a Complementary Fashion 367
8.3 The Concept of Limited Rationality In German and Brazilian Constitutional Realities 373
8.4 When the Concept of Limited Rationality Meets Constitutional Cases 385
8.4.1 Introduction 385
8.4.2 The Crucifix Case 386
8.4.3 The Cannabis Case 392
8.4.4 The Ellwanger Case 398
8.5 Final Words 404
Conclusion 407
Bibliography 413