Why is the impeachment proccess of Dilma Rousseff advancing so fast, while the proccess of other corrupt proimpeachment politicians take so much time?

PS: Post originalmente publicado no Quora

In few words, there’s a hidden agenda setting process.

Albeit Mr. Lynx Kepler is right pointing out the differences between Federal Judicial and Legislative Branches, I must argue that both of them are overcrowded and are rather unefficient. In addition, both branches have hidden (and unhidden) ways to set its own agenda, including accelerate or veto an oncoming impeachment.

STF had appreciated the constitutionality of current impeachment procedure in a fast pace (almost four months) in the ADPF 378. Counterwise, there's a pending lawsuit concerning the adoption of parliamentary system through an Ammendment of Constitution since 1997 (MS 22972)

How are the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights similar?

PS: Post originalmente publicado no Quora

Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights (the English one) have some similarities, but also many differences:

1. Both played a role in the limitationof King’s powers, creating the pathway to the current British Political System.
2. Both were shaped by the rulingelites of their time, therefore they don’t show some features present indeclarations born in popular revolutions, such the French “Declaration of theRights of Men” of 1789.
3. The meaning of those documents has been changed throughout the time – it is especially true regarding Magna Carta.

Nevertheless,there are some differences:

1. Magna Carta was created in 13thcentury, so its content resembles a common pact between vassals and theiroverlord.
2. Magna Carta originally not intendedto be a “Constitution”. Moreover, this idea did not dwelled in mind of itscreators at that epoch.

Are there countries with time prescription for murder?

PS: Post originalmente publicado no Quora

Brazil has.

Such theme is a bit complex, but under Penal Code of 1940 (still effective), the prescription lapse can reach up 20 years. Actually, most of homicides falls under that rule.

Considering the minimum penalty for a voluntary murder, the prescription lapse may reaches a low of twelve years.

Nonetheless, that time lapse can be restarted or suspended under certain circunstances.

In a life threatening situation, is it legal to kill people to ensure ones survival even if those people were not the cause of the predicament?

PS: Post originalmente publicado no Quora

In Brazil it may be legal, under certain circumstances.

Brazilian legal system has borrowed the “Notstand” concept from german criminal law. Nevertheless, the division between Rechtfertigender Notstand (StGB §34) and Entschuldigender Notstand (StGB §35) is only present in Military Penal Code of 1969. On the other hand, Penal Code of 1940 treats both cases as “Rechtfertigeneder Notstand”.

In few words, the Rechtfertigender Notstand (Justifying emergency) implies that one must break some law to save a more important good (such killing a lion to save your own life). On the contrary, Entschuldigender Notstand (apologetic emergency) means that the interest save by the broken law isn’t so important.

The implications of such concepts are different in German and Brazilian systems and widely discussed throughout academy. Sincerely, I cannot summarize everything here.

How is federalism a good or bad thing?

PS: Post originalmente publicado no Quora

This question isn’t well addressed, since such judgment must be done regarding a specific object (whether a country or a group of countries), not abstractly. Nonetheless, as Mr. Sean White remarked in his rather good answer, there’s some pros and cons. I shall point out some relevant issues concerning this question not discussed yet.

First and foremost, one nation does not deliberately choose to become a federation. Oppositely, such option is the outcome of its own institutional development, either as a group of independent states (e.g. USA, Germany), or as a country with many centers of power (e.g. Brazil).

On the other hand, unitary countries such France and UK are likely to show an institutional development which put aside regional differences and, mostly, has a single center of power (e.g. Paris, London).

As may be noticed, these arrangements don’t imply in a given economic outcome, nor in a given political system. Nevertheless, I may infer that Federal States simply cannot adopt a unitary one without a great inter-regional struggle, as their structure tend to rest on a political arrangement between the members of federation.

Accordingly, federalism is a good thing for those nations which succesfully adopted it, considering the other institutional options. Still, it may be good for unitary countries, but such finding must be done on a case by case basis.