We must recognize that it could not cope with the Democratic Justice, without establishing a pattern of expression, which tends to discourage, the restructuring of the highest known. For this reason it is taking the concept of”rhetoric" of nutrients that part of the premises acquired by the analysis of them with the support of other premises, if necessary, to raise the concept of Democratic Justice study. And you do not agree with Perelman when he says that justice is presented as a confused concept? But ECO is a comment used to believe that a true positive effect of the rhetoric of nutrients in the concept of Democratic Justice:

The first movement is effective: from purchased premises and arguments, criticize, review and make stylistic inventing cadences that, although according to some general trends of our system of expectations, indeed the richest.

This means that the principle of excluded middle, expression of Aristotelian logic has never been out of the knowledge process of justice. To make a final decision on the merits in court proceedings, the judge has only two options: either convicted or acquitted the accused. There is also in the operative part of a prayer room for ontic logic, these three fields of ontic prohibited, permitted and necessary to generate the beginning of the fourth excluded. They can be useful in understanding the values used by the magistrate, as principles of interpretation of law, distributive justice, on the basis of the sentence, but in the end, the judge has no way out of the Aristotelian logic corrective justice, convicted or not convicted. There is also a demand that may contain several requests from both the author and the defendant. They applied the same reasoning. The judges use the term "action based in part" by accepting only any of the claims dismissed as others that just seems unfair in light of the whole. Forensic and normal expression that also involves the elimination of non-Aristotelian logic.

Politics in the opposite occurs with the indiscriminate application of Aristotelian logic. You can generate some gross errors.

1 = premise of democracy is rule by the representation obtained by the free choice of the majority, 2 = premise that most people choose the representation is poor, the poor end = more representative elected to government posts. Both assumptions are quite true. Why, then, the logical conclusion is not? But if, on the one hand, formal logic suitable for legal discourse, but, finding no other political activity in the right direction. Few poor people in position to compete for elected office, which is a serious flaw in representative democracy, while in the law, with improved procedural techniques, improved daily access of the poor to the judiciary, primarily guaranteeing the right of action, established as a fundamental principle of law in the State Constitution.

In fact, you cannot find logical deductions in a traditional form of security to ensure democracy in the knowledge of political and administrative justice. Take this example: One is a poor country and B is a rich country, which has the money borrowed from B, to eradicate poverty; B reproduces the capital borrowed plus interest; conclusion, eradication of poverty. Obviously, there is no logic in this regard. A historical analysis leads to the simple observation that poor countries are even poorer in relation to their creditors and not to make the desired corrective justice. Increased, unlike the national poverty while rich countries better economic conditions of life for its citizens. This shows that it is better to borrow money and receive back with interest in obtaining a distributive justice for its citizens.

Finally, we can say that the law is present in Aristotle's rhetoric as a technique Geräte, to ensure the effectiveness of the movement, with positive effects for society, while politics is an apparent movement, which, according to ECO

"(...) We seem to lead to new decisions (buying a product, according to a political opinion), but in doing so, part of the premises, arguments and stylistic rhythms belonging to the universe and accepted and therefore urges us to do, but are apparently different, it always did. "

This is why Kelsen, having developed the purification of law by a scientist from the appropriation of formal logic, not to take criticism Aristotle. Rather, it is your ally and stressed its importance in which, indeed, Aristotelian logic is fertile ground in the law and getting practical results for the company, marking its presence in the knowledge processes of justice, but is irrelevant in terms of Democratic Justice Policy, with a view to possible use of a classification, is near some of the tenets of Aristotle, that through his theory of the division allows the distance to defend the possibility that the Justice have more of a knowledge process. Furthermore, the general equitable principle of universal justice Aristotelian principle of democratic justice, but relied on a new footing. This concept, issues of unparalleled importance for the development of the State on the lines as closely as possible right away, therefore, the pure faith in justice, which is the hallmark of the works of Plato . In fact, in politics, Aristotle examines the power of the state from a constitution, divided into three parts: one that deals with the discussion of public affairs, the second set of public functions and the third on the organization of power judiciary.

Given the division of remedial and distributive justice in the judiciary should be tried under the rules of corrective justice, i.e. to separate the functions of government and has an autonomy of decision. It is exactly what Aristotle in the sense that it does not mention the role of the judiciary in government but could come from the State Constitution. What is left to conclude that, according to Aristotle, the law excludes from the concept of Justice, although not its integral part, it is understood that the law, an Aristotelian view, does not guarantee a completely fair selection, especially in front of the virtues The fact led him to use logic to explain that the law can be a virtue only if it eliminates other options available, and furthermore within corrective justice. Distributive justice would be at the mercy of human nature, since man is political by nature, is against reason to understand the nature and rationale of the law, subjecting them to the virtues. The only element which then can interact with nature and the law is that equity Democratic Justice considers that the necessary balance to his concept.