FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ARGUMENTATION: ABOUT GROUNDS IN HARD CASES OF THE SUPREME FEDERAL COURT
Fundamental Rights, Dogmatic Fundamental Rights, Toulmin’s Layout
With a new normative focus, established by the change in the perception of the role of the constitution and construction of the normative concept of fundamental rights, the law is nowadays necessary to analyze cases of use and conflicts between fundamental rights. The search for correct answers in these cases is a way of seeking legal security, since the low density of normative of them means that the traditional methods of interpretation and argumentation can not account for fully determining an appropriate solution. Hermeneutics, through Wittgenstein's theory of games of language, will determine that language does not have a meaning in itself, which is why it refers to pragmatics, which in law is the moment of concretization that occurs in the argumentation. In this work, we seek to approach the problem through the theory of argumentation as a way of analyzing the solutions produced within the scope of the Federal Supreme Court in cases of fundamental rights, using dogmatic law theory in conjunction with the Toulmin’s Layout as a way of analyzing and evaluating the arguments made in the area of fundamental rights.