The Conflict Between Stare Decisis and Overruling in Constitutional Adjudication
Neither Supreme Court Justices, nor scholars who have written on the subject, take the view that the Constitution constrains the Court’s power to overrule its constitutional precedents. This essay argues that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires a constitutional law of overruling. Moreover, it proposes such a law on the basis of a conjunction of Marbury v. Madison, Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, and Cohens v. Virginia, together with Article III’s “case or controversy” requirement. I suggest that the Court should ask whether a precedent in question significantly impairs the constitutionalized Rule of Law. If it does, stare decisis would lapse for the Court, which then could freely consider whether to overrule. I argue that this approach provides due process, is conceptually sound, and is normatively attractive in the constitutional context.
A INTEGRIDADE DO DIREITO E O DEVER DE O MINISTÉRIO PÚBLICO PROCESSAR DIRETAMENTE O AGENTE PÚBLICO: O CASO DOS DANOS MORAIS COLETIVOS PRATICADOS PELO MINISTRO DA EDUCAÇÃO
O presente artigo busca responder a seguinte pergunta: a Constituicao autoriza que o Ministerio Publico ajuize acao de reparacao de danos diretamente contra determinado agente publico? A questao, aparentemente simples e ja amplamente debatida na doutrina de direito administrativo e na jurisprudencia dos tribunais, e explorada no presente texto de modo nao usual, pois: a) limita a interpretacao da responsabilizacao objetiva do Estado, prevista no art. 37, §6o da Constituicao, as hipoteses em que o Ministerio Publico, e nao o particular, ajuizam a acao; b) analisa tal dispositivo em contexto com o art. 129, III tambem da Constituicao, o qual preve como dever fundamental do Ministerio Publico a protecao ao patrimonio publico, necessariamente desfalcado caso a acao seja proposta contra a pessoa juridica respectiva. Conclui, a partir da teoria dos precedentes de Ronald Dworkin e de Juraci Mourao, que a tese da “dupla garantia” prevista no RE 327.904 e inaplicavel ao caso. 
Palavras-chave: dano moral; Ministro da Educacao; Teoria dos precedentes; Responsabilizacao pessoal.
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.