百家争鸣
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[Philosophy Constitutionalism]
郭国汀律师专栏
·相信生命—郭国汀律师印象
·赵国君 做一名人权律师——访郭国汀律师
·申请任专兼职教授与评审一级律师的故事
·志当存高远-我的理想与追求/南郭
·我的知识结构与思想/南郭
·汝凭什么任教授?!/郭国汀
·我们决不再沉默! 郭国汀
·郭国汀:正义者永不孤单
·虽千万人,吾往矣!
·法律人的历史使命---郭国汀答《北大法律人》主编采访录
·法律人的历史使命 网友评论
·如何成为一名伟大的,优秀的法律人?
·如何成为一名伟大的律师?网友评论
·为当代中国人的幸福而努力奋斗
·我的告别书—再见中国律师网
·勇敢地参政议政吧 中国律师!
***(23)《郭国汀自传》郭国汀著
·《郭国汀自传》第一章:阴错际差(1)
·《郭国汀自传》第二章:灭顶之灾
·《郭国汀自传》第三章:奋力拚搏
·《郭国汀自传》第四章:东山再起
·《郭国汀自传》第五章:山重水复
·《郭国汀自传》第六章:永恒的中国心
·郭国汀致海内外全体中国网民的公开函
·极好之网站-天易综合网
·天易论坛宣言—天道至大,易道天成
·南郭不与匿名者论战的声明
·请广西网友立即转告陈西上诉
·就朱镕基与法轮功答疑似五毛党徒古镜质疑
·马克思最大的缺陷之一是其根本不了解人的本性
·南郭谈论习近平
·南郭谈论习近平秘信
·马克思恩格斯列宁之无产阶级专政辩析
·轮流强暴马恩之恶果——“无产阶级专政”
·郭律师就民运英友张林之女安妮被非法剥夺入学权事致习近平/李克强公开函
·郭国汀:批驳体制内文人俞可平严重误导国人的谬论
·父权政治公民政治及专制政治
·什么是我们为之奋斗牺牲的正义和自由?
·什么是自由主义?新自由主义?改革自由主义?
·《匪首毛泽东》20.野心恶性膨胀的邪恶致极的毛泽东
·中共政权的性质与现状
·Politics and truth
·Justice and pursuit of truth
·God and modern politics
·Why Federalism?Dose Federal system better to protect minority rights?
·Injustice as the root of terrorism: Social political and economic fact
·列宁之“无产阶级专政”批判
·ompare Analysisof Marx and Lenin’s Theory of the Dictatorship of the
·我的坎坷律师生涯(9):孤独的长跑者
·《我的坎坷律师生涯《我的坎坷律师生涯》(7):知青岁月》(7):知青岁月
·有关圣经翻译的若干问题
·郭国汀:论爱情
·錯帐俏曳傅模珨凳旰笥H自糾錯我還不偉大嗎?!
·文革教训原因考
·开放党禁与多党联合政治——回顾三大改造、三面红旗、反右、文革史有感
·论质、量互变关系
·学习与开放
·无产阶级领袖有感
·无产阶级领袖的重大作用
·勇敢地参政议政吧!中国律师们!
·郭国汀:从 “中国律师人”说开去
·中國律師朋友們幸福不會從天降
·律師的文學功底
·郭國汀:中國涉外案件沒有一起獲得執行
·南郭:堂堂正正做個真正的中國人!
·郭国汀:愿王洪民先生在天之灵安息.
·南郭:令郭國汀律師老淚縱橫的真情
·郭国汀:民族败类!你是否中国人?
·郭國汀:令我熱淚橫流的小詩
·郭国汀:专制流氓暴政本质的再暴露
·郭國汀:強烈譴責中共惡意迫害自由戰士楊天水 許萬平
·今天我絕食——英雄多多益善!
·一个中国人权律师的真实故事
·郭国汀:全球接力绝食抗暴运动的伟大意义
·郭国汀:闻律师英雄高智晟再遇车祸有感
·只有思想言论信仰结社出版新闻舆论的真正自由能够救中国!
· 南郭:自由万岁!新年好!
·志当存高远-我的理想与追求
·我的知识结构与思想
·人生 道德 灵魂/南郭
·男子汉的眼泪/郭国汀
·相信生命—郭國汀律師印象
·南郭点评
·Racism is the biggest enemy of Justice and equality
·The Essence Distinguish Between Marx and Lenin on the Dictatorship of
·Race Politic as the Enemy of Justice and Equality
·The Great Leap Famine: Natural Disaster or Political disaster or Murde
·Homosexuality: a legal or moral problem?
·1958-1962年中国历史上最具毁灭性的大灾难
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Philosophy Constitutionalism

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Constitutionalism
   Constitutionalism is the idea, often associated with the political theories of John Locke and the "founders" of the American republic, that government can and should be legally limited in its powers, and that its authority depends on its observing these limitations. This idea brings with it a host of vexing questions of interest not only to legal scholars, but to anyone keen to explore the legal and philosophical foundations of the state. How can a government be legally limited if law is the creation of government? Does this mean that a government can be "self-limiting," or is there some way of avoiding this implication? If meaningful limitation is to be possible, must constitutional constraints be somehow "entrenched"? Must they be enshrined in written rules? If so, how are they to be interpreted? In terms of literal meaning or the intentions of their authors, or in terms of the, possibly ever-changing, values they express? How one answers these questions depends crucially on how one conceives the nature, identity and authority of constitutions. Does a constitution establish a stable framework for the exercise of public power which is in some way fixed by factors like the original meaning or intentions? Or is it a "living tree" which grows and develops in tandem with changing political values and principles? These and other such questions are explored below.
   1. Constitutionalism: a Minimal and a Rich Sense
   2. Sovereign versus Government
   3. Entrenchment

   4. "Writtenness"
   5. Montesquieu and the Separation of Powers
   6. Constitutional Law versus Constitutional Convention
   7. Constitutional Interpretation and Constitutional Theories
   8. The Fixed View and the Living Tree
   9. Textualism: The Meaning of a Constitution’s Text
   10. Originalism
   11. Hypothetical Intent Theory
   12. Dworkin: Moral Theory
   13. Critical Theory
   Bibliography
   Other Internet Resources
   Related Entries
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   1. Constitutionalism: a Minimal and a Rich Sense
   In some minimal sense of the term, a "constitution" consists of a set of rules or norms creating, structuring and defining the limits of, government power or authority. Understood in this way, all states have constitutions and all states are constitutional states. Anything recognizable as a state must have some acknowledged means of constituting and specifying the limits (or lack thereof) placed upon the three basic forms of government power: legislative power (making new laws), executive power (implementing laws) and judicial power (adjudicating disputes under laws). Take the extreme case of an absolute monarch, Rex, who combines unlimited power in all three domains. If it is widely acknowledged that Rex has these powers, as well as the authority to exercise them at his pleasure, then the constitution of this state could be said to contain only one rule, which grants unlimited power to Rex. He is not legally answerable for the wisdom or morality of his decrees, nor is he bound by procedures, or any other kinds of limitations or requirements, in exercising his powers. Whatever he decrees is constitutionally valid.
   When scholars talk of constitutionalism, however, they normally mean something that rules out Rex’s case. They mean not only that there are rules creating legislative, executive and judicial powers, but that these rules impose limits on those powers.[1] Often these limitations are in the form of individual or group rights against government, rights to things like free expression, association, equality and due process of law. But constitutional limits come in a variety of forms. They can concern such things as the scope of authority (e.g. in a federal system, provincial or state governments may have authority over health care and education while the federal government’s jurisdiction extends to national defence and transportation); the mechanisms used in exercising the relevant power (e.g. procedural requirements governing the form and manner of legislation); and of course civil rights (e.g. in a Charter or Bill of Rights). Constitutionalism in this richer sense of the term is the idea that government can/should be limited in its powers and that its authority depends on its observing these limitations. In this richer sense of the term, there is no "constitution" in Rex’s society because the rules defining his authority impose no such limits. Compare a second state in which Regina has all the powers possessed by Rex except that she lacks authority to legislate on matters concerning religion. Suppose further that Regina also lacks authority to implement, or to adjudicate on the basis of, any law which exceeds the scope of her legislative competence. We have here the seeds of constitutionalism as that notion has come to be understood in Western legal thought.
   In discussing the history and nature of constitutionalism, a comparison is often drawn between Thomas Hobbes and John Locke who are thought to have defended, respectively, the notion of a constitutionally unlimited sovereign (e.g. Rex) versus that of a sovereign limited by the terms of a social contract containing substantive limitations on her authority (e.g. Regina).[2] But an equally good focal point is the English legal theorist John Austin who, like Hobbes, thought that the very notion of limited sovereignty is incoherent. For Austin, all law is the command of a sovereign, and so the notion that the sovereign could be limited by law requires a sovereign who is self-binding, who commands him/her/itself. But no one can "command" himself, except in some figurative sense, so the notion of limited sovereignty is, for Austin (and Hobbes), as incoherent as the idea of a square circle.[3] Though this feature of Austin’s theory has some plausibility when applied to the British Parliamentary system, where Parliament is often said to be "supreme" and constitutionally unlimited,[4] it faces serious difficulty when applied to most other constitutional democracies such as one finds in the United States and Germany, where it is clear that the powers of government are legally limited by a constitution. Austin’s answer was to say that sovereignty may lie with the people, or some other person or body whose authority is unlimited. Government bodies -- e.g. Parliament or the judiciary -- can be limited by constitutional law, but the sovereign -- i.e. "the people" -- remains unlimited. Whether this provides Austin with an adequate means of dealing with constitutional democracies is highly questionable. For Austin’s sovereign is a determinate individual or group of individuals whose commands to others constitute law. But if we identify the commanders with "the people", then we have the paradoxical result identified by H.L.A. Hart -- the commanders are commanding the commanders. In short, we lapse into incoherence.[5]
   2. Sovereign versus Government
   Though there are serious difficulties inherent in Austin’s attempt to make sense of "the people’s sovereignty," his account does bring out the need to distinguish between two different concepts: sovereignty and government. Roughly speaking, we might define "sovereignty" as the possession of supreme (and possibly unlimited) power and authority over some domain, and "government" as those persons or bodies through whom sovereignty is exercised. Once some such distinction is drawn, we see immediately that sovereignty might lie somewhere other than with the government. And once this implication is accepted, we can coherently go on to speak of limited government coupled with unlimited sovereignty. Arguably this is what one should say about constitutional democracies where the people’s sovereignty is thought to be unlimited but the government’s power is constitutionally limited. As Locke held, unlimited sovereignty remains with the people who have the normative power to void the authority of their government (or some part thereof) if it exceeds its constitutional limitations.
   Though sovereignty and government are different notions, it does seem possible for them to apply to the same individual or body. It is arguable that Hobbes insisted on the identification of sovereign and government insofar as he seemed to require a (virtually) complete transfer of all rights and powers from sovereign individuals to a political sovereign whose authority was to be absolute, thus rendering it possible to emerge from the wretched state of nature in which life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."[6] In Hobbes’ theory, supreme sovereignty must reside in the supreme governmental person or body who enjoys unlimited power and authority to rule the commonwealth. Anything less than unlimited government would, given human nature and the world we inhabit, destroy the very possibility of stable government. So even if "sovereignty" and "government" are different notions, this neither means nor implies that the two could not apply to one and the same individual(s).

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场