عنوان مقاله [English]
Courts and tribunals are the most important institutions for presenting reasoning in the legal systems of any country; reasoning and its quality play an important role in procedures. This matter not only at the level of ordinary courts but also at the level of constitutional procedure, and reasoning has plays a central role in the opinions of constitutional courts.In this article, we try to analyze how the constitutional courts are able to extract the most and most useful meaning from the brevity, briefness, ambiguity or silence of the constitution by using complex tricks and methods of interpretation and reasoning. Therefore, we try to address some basic questions about what is legal reasoning and rational reasoning, constitutional reasoning methods, and the methods and patterns of reasoning of the constitutional courts of countries in their decisions.
In answer to the above questions, it should be said briefly:"constitutional reasoning" is a method of legal reasoning that tries to lead the legal arguments of the constitutional judge towards justification and while being faithful to the constitution,takes a distance from the judge's personal / subjective arguments. constitutional judges generally follow different ways of reasoning, in this brief we have dealt with three argumentative approaches, namely "linguistic approach", "systemic approach" and "value or teleological approach". Constitutional courts,too, have usually chosen one of the above methods of reasoning, based on their country's social, political, and historical background/context.