Public policies have been interested mainly in the design of tools to identify the best decisions in the field of government management. On the side of deliberative democracy, studies have focused on the analysis of discussion procedures. However, they have a common element: the importance of the actors on decision making. The objective of this paper is to analyze the interaction between ideas, actors and institutions in public policies from application of deliberative democracy, as the mechanism for legitimizing the management of political-administrative authorities. Research starts from the premise deliberation allows us to moderate the power of the government, and correct some of the situations of democratic disorders, through a dialogical control that requires accountability, transparency and publicity about decisions that affect the lives of citizens, as well as effective participation in the elaboration of public policies, as an expression of self-government.
Hermeneutics as an art of attributing meaning, in the specific case of legal
hermeneutics, has constructed rational criteria of interpretation of law whose purpose is to reproduce authority. These criteria have given rise to an idea of truly unique justice captured by an abstract entity that is the State. This rationality, rightly identified in the rule of law and with reasonableness in the constitutional state, has favored the subjects who demand judicial proceedings and those responsible for administering said justice,
the feeling that this is the exclusive property of a single subject .
There is another feeling of justice in the so-called transitional justice: the truth in the reality of war is not rational and its content is emotional, its object is to approach the reconstruction of an amorphous truth and relative to the pain of loss and of feeling of revenge; the truth, that is not the exclusive property of who is right, is constituted in an end to achieve reparation.
The burden of legal argumentation, is one of the three elements of the model of ponderative adjudication of the right, in times of democratic constitutional State. Our objective with this work is to show, as has been the jurisprudential treatment of the Constitutional Court of Colombia, has been given this argumentative-interpretative device, as a complement to the extended or integral model of the application of fundamental rights. Especially from the comparative constitutional perspective, look at how the notion has been constructed in the contexts of the Constitutional Courts: German, Italian and Spanish. In the areas of establishing the distinctive features of the model of the burden of rights in Colombia, not only from the theoretical reception, but from a true appropriation of the concept and the procedural aspects of it, in the judgments of constitutionality and guardianship, generating a model for the entire Latin American context, from the influence of the Alexyana proposal.
The paper will deal with the relevance and need to generate a large space for constitutional discussion in Colombia that can be replicated in other contexts with which the same problems are shared and which can be called a NATIONAL JURISPRUDENT ASSEMBLY in which concertation takes place. of the basic aspects that a legal theory must have according to the political reality and the legal practice. In democracies in crisis due to the little legitimacy of the parliamentary body, power can not be limited by law; a general theory of law is required and, especially, a principial theory that recognizes in the principles prevailing legal norms over the other norms, that condition their validity and limit the exercise of any expression of power coming from the legislative, executive or jurisdictional body.