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
***(2)郭国汀律师为法轮功强力抗辩
·Resolution for Falun Gong in Congress of USA
·法轮圣徒瞿延来为何令南郭敬重?答MICRONET有关瞿延来的质疑
·中共为何血腥镇压法轮功?
·诉江泽民案美国依据国际法的义务:是对公共安全的危胁还是种族灭绝?
·值得中国律师学习的起诉书: 诉江泽民\李岚清\罗干\刘京\王茂林损害赔偿两千万加元
·郭国汀论辩法轮功
·我为法轮功说句公道话
·陈光辉监外执行、保外就医申请书
·为争取信仰自由权已绝食抗争七百八十天的瞿延来.
·百无一用是中国律师
·答三项基本原则
·中共必须立即停止镇压法轮功
·我为什么为法轮功辩护? 郭国汀
·我为法轮功抗辩的真实心声
·法轮功真相之我见
·中共才是真正的邪教----中共血腥残暴迫害法轮功的根源
·中共镇压法轮功的国际法分析
·中共滥用教制度镇压法轮功的法理解析
·当代中国的盖世太宝[610办公室]研究(英文)
·有感于对法轮功学员的强制教育
·中共当局必须立即无条件释放刘如平律师!郭国汀
·声援支持杨在新律师!
·郭国汀章天亮曾宁谈425和平上访到千万退党的精神延续
·中共专制暴政一直在杀人----悼念讲真相英雄陈光辉
·FALUN GONG PERSECUTION FACTS HEET
·RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FALUN GONG IN CHINA
·2
·Falun Gong Wins Motion in Historic Torture Lawsuit against Former Head of China
·为法轮功抗辩与自由中国论坛部份网民的论战
·Dr Wang Wenyi will be remembered by history as a great courage hero
·法轮功是比中共有过之无不及的一人专制吗?-答谭嗣同先生
·法轮功讲真相无罪
·郭国汀:对法轮功学员的劳教、判刑是非法行为
·郭国汀介绍为法轮功学员打官司的曲折经历
·质疑张千帆教授对法轮功的评价 郭国汀
·宣誓证词Affidavit
·中共一贯谎言连篇是个地道的骗子党!
·中共下达密文奥运成迫害最大借口
·中国著名人权律师从为法轮功辩护看中共践踏法律(图)
·郭国汀律师批评中共奧運前加劇迫害法輪功
·郭国汀律师呼吁台湾政府予吴亚林政治庇护
·郭国汀律师称中共持续非法迫害法轮功及其辩护律师
·答Gavin0919郭国汀是法轮功走狗之指控
***(3)郭国汀为法轮功辩护的专访
·专访郭国汀律师(上) :为法轮功辩护
·专访郭国汀律师(下) :回首不言悔
·RFA:郭国汀介绍为法轮功学员打官司的曲折经历
·自由亞洲電台专访郭國汀谈為法輪功學員打官司
·希望之声郭国汀专访:对法轮功学员的劳教、判刑是非法行为
***(三)郭国汀律师为郑恩宠抗辩
·我为郑恩宠律师抗辩的前前后后
·为郑恩宠案翟明磊等中国新闻记者六君子的声明
·敬请关注郑恩宠律师所谓"非法获取国家秘密罪"一案
·历史将证明郑恩宠律师无罪/郭国汀
·郑恩宠案二审辩护词及网友评论/郭国汀
·关于会见在押的郑恩宠的第二次申请函
·郑恩宠律师“为境外非法提供国家秘密罪”一审判决书
·上海市高级法院郑恩宠案刑事裁定书
·郑恩宠冤案再审案至全国律协诸位会长之公开函/郭国汀
·中国最需要像郑恩宠这样的律师
·诽谤郑恩宠律师的中共党奴及特务名录
·再谈郑恩宠案 郭国汀倡律师网上辩护
·我为郑恩宠辩护的前前后后 郭国汀
·上海普通市民感受的郑恩宠大律师
·关于郑恩宠案我的声明
·我为郑恩宠律师辩护
·一切源于郑恩宠案,可敬的国安兄弟请自重!
·郑恩宠聘请辩护人的真相
·郑恩宠聘请辩护律师真相之二
·真为这位北京律师脸红!
·张思之大律师冒着酷暑赴看守所会见郑恩宠
·上海监狱当局婉拒郑恩宠的辩护律师会见
·关于会见在押的郑恩宠的第二次申请函
·揭开“时代精英“画皮
·答时代精英,
·再答时代精英教导
·向张思之律师,郑恩宠律师学习,致敬!
·南郭:仗义执言的律师还是没良心的律师
·驳“文律”兄郑案高论/南郭
·中国最需要像郑恩宠这样的律师
·凡跟郭国汀贴者一律入选黑名单
·批驳李洪东之首恶律师说!
·历史岂容任意伪造!
·惊闻郑恩宠律师夫人蒋美丽被拘捕!
·郑恩宠案二审会维持原判,辩护律师难辞其咎。
·求名求利的律师代表
·答L君之三项基本原则
·郑恩宠案网友评论
·网友支持或反对郑恩宠的评论
·支持或反对郑恩宠的网友评论之二
·中国律师声援支持郑恩宠
·吴国策律师:“求名求利的律师代表——某律师的心里”系他人盗名发表的声明
·中国律师声援支持郑恩宠律师
·网警\网友\特务与郑恩宠案
·郑恩宠律师的最后一篇代理词
·关于记者杨金志、陈斌严重侵犯郑恩宠律师名誉权的律师函
·郭国汀律师如果你还是个真正的男人的话,请你勇于承担败诉的责任。
[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