Abstract: This article examines the correlation between constitutional argumentation and the models of transformation of legal rules occurring under the influence of constitutional judgments. With references to the case law of the Russian Constitutional Court, the German Constitutional Court, and the United States Supreme Court, the author analyzes argumentative patterns that arise when dealing with specific options for legislative correction. This article focuses on such measures as striking down a legal provision, formulating an exception to a general rule, correcting the hypothesis, disposition, and sanction of a legal norm, clarifying the mechanisms of legal regulation in terms of time, territory, and persons affected, filling legislative gaps and providing additional safeguards. The article makes an original contribution to scholarship because it explores constitutional argumentation instrumentally. Having shown that argumentation serves a supplementary function to judicial review, the author identifies the argumentative patterns prevailing in constitutional discourse and analyzes the mechanism of constructing arguments. It is argued that constitutional reasoning reflects the critical assessment of lex lata and portrays its constitutional deficiencies with a simultaneous projection of normative models that meet constitutional requirements. The article concludes that constitutional argumentation aims to demonstrate constitutionally acceptable legislative decisions and explain why, how, and in what part a challenged law is to be amended.

Abstract: The subject of the study was the procedural features of constitutional control that affect the style of constitutional and judicial argumentation. The author sought to identify and analyze the parameters of norm-control activity that determine the content of argumentation techniques, using as an empirical basis of the study the experience of organizing constitutional control in Russia, Australia, Austria, Germany, Israel, Spain, Italy, Canada, USA, Taiwan, France and South Africa. Particular attention was paid to such procedural and procedural factors as the model of constitutional control, the procedure for considering cases, including the specifics of raising questions addressed by judges to participants in court proceedings, the availability of texts of procedural documents, the tradition of presenting the text of a court decision, the number of judges, the collegial procedure for making a decision and the content of the institute of dissenting opinion. Using the concept of argumentation style and identifying the correlation between specific procedural rules and argumentation patterns arising in the practice of constitutional justice, the author outlined the advantages and disadvantages of certain parameters of judicial control over the constitutionality of normative acts. In general, the conducted research allows us to conclude that the institutional environment of norm-controlled activity is formed not only by procedural rules, but also by legal traditions that dominate in a particular state, since the relevance, suitability and relevance of individual argumentation strategies used within the framework of constitutional control largely depend on their compatibility with the nature of legal thinking.

Abstract: The article examines approaches to the assessment of evidence used by Russian and American courts. The main purpose of the paper was to identify the distinctive features of judicial review of legislation that a lawmaker should take into account while selecting optimal rules for the assessment of evidence in constitutional litigation. The author pays particular attention to the epistemological foundations and procedural aspects of a direct perception of evidence that leads to a conclusion on whether or not facts at issue exist. Using methods of comparative law and analyzing in detail the rules on the assessment of evidence, he determines the historical reasons why Russia adopted the concept of free evaluation of evidence, whereas the United States opted for the objective standards of proof, such as «preponderance of the evidence», «clear and convincing evidence», and «beyond a reasonable doubt». The article demonstrates that rules on the assessment of evidence should take into consideration the structural properties inherent to constitutional litigation, including the consequences of the constitutional decision-making process, the necessity to decide constitutional cases on a probabilistic basis, and the generalized nature of facts affecting the constitutionality of laws.

Abstract: The article examines approaches to the assessment of evidence used by Russian and American courts. The main purpose of the paper was to identify the distinctive features of judicial review of legislation that a lawmaker should take into account while selecting optimal rules for the assessment of evidence in constitutional litigation. The author pays particular attention to the epistemological foundations and procedural aspects of a direct perception of evidence that leads to a conclusion on whether or not facts at issue exist. Using methods of comparative law and analyzing in detail the rules on the assessment of evidence, he determines the historical reasons why Russia adopted the concept of free evaluation of evidence, whereas the United States opted for the objective standards of proof, such as «preponderance of the evidence», «clear and convincing evidence», and «beyond a reasonable doubt». The article demonstrates that rules on the assessment of evidence should take into consideration the structural properties inherent to constitutional litigation, including the consequences of the constitutional decision-making process, the necessity to decide constitutional cases on a probabilistic basis, and the generalized nature of facts affecting the constitutionality of laws.