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]->[One of the major writer whose legal thought Influence the Americas Founding Fathers ]
郭国汀律师专栏
·真正的民主自由政体是中国唯一的选择
·自由万岁!新年好!
·三论思想自由
·为自由而战,为正义事业献身,死得其所无尚光荣
·言论自由受到了严重威胁
·思想自由的哲学基础/郭国汀
·冲破精神思想的牢狱--自由要义/郭国汀
·我们为什么要争言论自由权?/南郭
***(38)思想自由与宗教信仰自由
·郭国汀论宗教信仰
·神学与哲学的异同
·宗教的思索
·爱因斯坦信犹太教和贵格教也信上帝
·信神是愚昧吗?!基督教义反人性吗?!谁在大规模屠杀婴儿?!
·爱因斯坦宗教信仰上帝相关言论选译
·爱因斯坦宗教上帝相关言论第二集
· 爱因斯坦原信的准确译法
·大哲大师大思想家大政治家论宗教上帝
·哲学家的前提与基础
·宗教是统治阶级麻醉人民的鸦片吗?
·为什么说爱才是宇宙的本质?
·宗教起源的根源何在?
·圣父圣子圣灵三位一体论的由来
·人民圣殿教真相
·质疑东海一枭良知大法兼驳良知宇宙本体论
·自然科学与宗教哲学灵魂
·读东海兄批判美国神话有感
·郭国汀为上帝信仰辩护
·驳东海之糊涂上帝观
·四海之内皆兄弟人类本是一家人
·推荐陈尔晋先生之《圣灵福音》
·质疑东海君之《良知大法》
·祝愿祖国早日实现真正的自由!
·关于司法公正的讨论郭国汀律师在北大法律信息网上发表了非常危险的错误观点应该予以驳斥!
·中共当局封杀言论为那般?
·六四的记忆
·谈中华文化与道德重建(四)
·中国百年最伟大的文字!
·郭国汀:为刘荻女英雄辩护吾当仁不让!
·只有思想言论出版新闻舆论的真正自由能够救中国!
·只有说真话的民族才有前途
·一个能思想的人才是力量无边的人/南郭
·思想之可贵在于其独立性
·独立思想是最美的
·思想的高度统一是人类社会之大敌
·统一思想之谬误由来已久矣/南郭
·我的心里话--有感于杜导斌先生被捕
***中共专制暴政政治迫害郭国汀律师实录
·郭国汀律师遭遇黑色元宵节
·中共对我的八次政治迫害--在温哥华告别恐惧讨共诉苦座谈会上的发言(上)
·中共暴政对我的八次政治迫害(中)
·中共暴政对我的八次政治迫害(下)
·If You Really Want Control Lock up Their Lawyers
·Anti-communist sentiments landed Chinese lawyer in an asylum
·我的思想认识与保证/郭国汀
·郭国汀律师的[悔罪][悔过]与[乞求]
·郭国汀因言论“违宪”行政处罚听证案代理词
·我推崇的浦志强大律师/郭国汀
·我被中共当局非法剥夺执业资格的真实原因
***(24)《共产主义黑皮书》郭国汀编译
·共产党皆变成杀人犯罪团伙的历史与理论分析
·朝鲜的罪恶与恐怖和秘密:共产党暴政罪恶批判系列之一
·古巴共产极权政权的罪恶:共产党暴政罪恶批判之二
·越南共产党暴政罪恶昭彰:共产党极权暴政罪恶实录之三
·中欧和东南欧共产党暴政的深重罪孽: 共产党极权暴政罪恶批判之四
·埃塞俄比亚共产党政权的罪孽: 共产党政权罪恶实录之五
·安哥拉和莫桑比克共产党政权的血腥暴力:共产党政权罪恶实录之六
·阿富汉共产党暴政罪大恶极:共产党极权暴政罪恶实录之七
·尼加拉瓜共产党政权的罪孽:共产党暴政罪恶实录之八
·秘鲁共产党的血腥残暴:共产党暴政罪恶实录之九
·虐杀成性的柬普寨共产党暴政:共产党暴政罪恶实录评论系列之十
·波兰共产党政权的罪孽:共产党暴政罪恶实录系列评论之十一
·苏联共产党暴政的滔天罪行:共产党暴政罪恶实录系列评论之十二
·中国共产党极权流氓暴政的滔天罪孽:共产党暴政罪恶实录系列评论之十三
·论共产党极权暴政的归宿-- 2010年全球支持中國和亞洲民主化斯特拉斯堡大會专稿
·金正日真面目
·韩战真相
***(25)《苏联东欧天鹅绒革命》郭国汀编译
·东欧天鹅绒革命导论
·苏联政治民主革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析系列评论之一
·罗马尼亚暴力革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析系列评论之二
·匈牙利静悄的革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析之三
·捷克戏剧性革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析之四
·东德和平革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析之五
·波兰自我限制的革命:共产党极权暴政崩溃原因分析之六
·罗马尼亚35天革命成功真相
·社会转媒(国际互联网)对阿拉伯之春革命的巨大作用
·郭国汀:苏共政权垮台的根本原因
·阿拉伯之春埃及部分成功的革命
·阿拉伯之春:突尼斯成功的革命
·觉醒的人民粉碎专制体制:阿拉伯革命
·民主革命决非恐怖主义
·东欧各国追究共产党罪犯的罪责概况
·共产党专制暴政皆依赖秘密政治警察实行极权恐怖统治
·共产党极权暴政利用强制劳改劳教集中营野蛮残暴迫害人民
·共产党极权专制暴政实质上皆与人民为敌
·共产党极权专政暴政的大清洗
·共产党极权专制暴政皆利用强制劳改集中营野蛮迫害人民
·共产党极权专制暴政皆践踏法律司法暗无天日
·共产党极权专制暴政皆疯狂迫害宗教信仰者
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
One of the major writer whose legal thought Influence the Americas Founding Fathers

   One of the major writer whose legal thought Influence the Americas Founding Fathers
   
   Author unknow
   Thomasgguo note
   

   We used to know only 17 to 18 century a group thought effect the America’s Founding Fathers, in fact, a 12 century British Justice, was the first major writers on the subject of English constitutional law and custom following Magna Carta was Henry Bracton.
   
   Bracton was born, lived and worked in Devon during the early 1200s (his birthdate unknown, he died in Exeter, in 1268). He was both a Cleric and a Justice - as indeed was common at that time, for few but the Clergy could read. From 1245 he was an Itinerant Justice for King Henry III, and from 1247 to 1257 was a Judge of the Coram Rege which later became the King's or Queen's Bench.
   
   His (Latin language) document On the Laws and Customs of England is one of the oldest systematic treatises on English Common Law. It also deals in depth with the obligations of, and disciplines upon Royal power, concentrating on three major themes: that the King should himself be subject to and act within the Law, that he should rule wisely and justly, and that he should rule in consultation with his peers(a member of any of five noble ranks, baron, viscount, earl, marquis and duke, who has the right to sit in the House of Lords), the "eminent men" of the land.
   
   The King must first of all be subject to, and act within the Law.
   
   In stressing the King's relationship with the law, Bracton identifies two aspects of law and the apparent contradiction between them. One aspect of law consists of orders and regulations, and in this sense the King is the source of law. The other aspect of law is the body of custom we would now call the Constitutional Framework; here the King must himself be subject to law, for the King and the very institution of Monarchy owe their existence to law in this Constitutional sense.
   
   So Bracton insists that "the King must be under God and under the Law, because the King's position owes its very existence to the wider framework of law.
   
   "Let him therefore in his Laws, observe the due process of law through which he himself exists. For the King is not fulfilling his legal obligations when he rules by personal will, rather than by due process of law under the ultimate will of God."
   
   Bracton also expects the King to obey his own laws, for the King, though the source of Law, is not outside the Law:
   
   "What the King is bound by virtue of his office to forbid to others, he ought not to do himself. Let him, therefore, temper his power by the due process of law, which is the discipline upon power, that he may live according to the Laws, for the Law of mankind has decreed that the lawgiver should be bound by his own Laws.
   
   "Nothing is more fitting for a Sovereign than to live by and within the laws, nor is there any greater sovereignty than to govern according to the due process of Law, and the Sovereign ought properly to yield to the tradition and process of Law that makes him King."
   
   Bracton strengthens his argument with this forceful reference to Christian example:
   
   "That the King must bow to the process and formality of law is parallelled in the example of Jesus Christ. Though many ways were open to Him to fulfil His destiny in the redemption(the action of redeeming or state of being redeemed; to buy or gain one’s freedom) of the Human race, He chose to destroy the devil's work, not through the arbitrary use of His great powers, but by subjecting Himself to the existing laws of justice. In this way He willed Himself to be under the law that He might redeem all those who must live under it. He chose to use not force, but judgement."
   
   Monarchs of England and Europe have often claimed to rule by Divine Right. The Kings themselves interpreted the concept of Divine Right as placing them above and beyond the reach - or reproach(blame;the expression of disapproval; disgrace) - of the law, and of those they ruled.
   
   Bracton however voices an earlier understanding of Rule by Divine Right, namely that the King is God's Minister, and as such is under obligation to rule wisely and responsibly:
   
   "The King is Vicar and Minister of God on Earth, and from God comes the power of justice. Therefore the King's power is that of justice, not injustice. The power of injustice is from the Devil, not from God.
   
   "The King will be the Minister of him whose work he performs. Therefore as long as he does justice he is the Vicar of the Eternal King, but he is the Devil's Minister when he deviates into injustice or injury.
   
   "The King is called King, not from reigning(to be the king or queen, without holding real power), but from ruling well, since he is a King as long as he rules well, but a tyrant when he oppresses by violent domination the people entrusted to his care."
   
   Bracton also stresses the requirement of participation in the formulation of laws:
   
   "The King should not propose or enact laws rashly by his own will or whim(a sudden idea or wish, often one that is not reasonable or sensible); the law should be properly decided with the counsel of his peers, the King giving it formal authority only after full joint deliberation(careful consideration; thorough examination of a matter) and consultation."
   
   Bracton thus set out the three major ideals of Constitutional Monarchy: that the King should himself be subject to and act within the Law, that he should rule wisely and justly, and that he should rule in consultation with his peers.
   
   The battle for consultation was won when Parliament gained supremacy(the state of being supreme) over the Monarch, and Britain became a Constitutional Monarchy.
   
   But now a new constitutional challenge would appear: the challenge of subjecting Parliament to constitutional discipline. Subsequent political development would attempt to ensure that, while Parliament would remain and grow as the institution of legislation and of popular representation, the power of Parliament itself should not become absolute, and Parliament should be subject to the same rules of underlying constitutional precedent which had previously been formulated to discipline Monarchs.
   
   This was the background from which America's Founding Fathers drew both fear and inspiration: fear of re-creating a new autocratic monarchy or presidency, and inspiration for the creation of a new kind of government, a government representing its people not dominating or oppressing them.
   
   Thomasgguo note: it is very clear that constitution is only the son of the idea of constitutionalism, thus the value and conception as well as the ideologies of constitution is vital important in constitutional government. Constitutional government is the only way to escape the autocracy and dictatorship regime

©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