大家
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[大家]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[The Bill of Rights]
郭国汀律师专栏
***(59)(五)郭国汀律师名案劲辩
***(1)政治良心案
·力虹(张建红)煽动颠覆国家政权案的咄咄怪事
·郭国汀力虹被中共无罪重判的真实原因
·评论严正责令胡锦涛立即无条件释放朱宇飙律师!
·简析严正学所谓颠覆国家政权案
·严正学所谓[涉嫌颠覆国家政权案]必须公开审判
·强烈谴责胡锦涛公然践踏法律任意拘禁人律师的恶劣行径
·东洲惨案发生的根源——呼吁由联合国组织调查团进行公正调查/郭国汀
·评吴爱中张惠刘兰(法轮功讲真相)案的两审判决
·郑恩宠律师“为境外非法提供国家秘密罪”辩护词
·律师关于郑恩宠案的二审辩护词
·郑恩宠非法为境外提供国家秘密罪刑事申诉状
·郭国汀:我为什么为清水君辩护
·作家张林又被刑事拘留!
·声援支持杨天水和张林
·杨天水是令人敬佩的民主战士
·辩护律师郭国汀获准会见杨天水
·坚决支持李国涛先生的义举,反对极权专制独裁政治!
·师涛是当代中国英雄——
·六四与师涛
·师涛为中国记者受难为自由民主坐牢
·郭国汀指雅虎遵守当地法律说无法律根据
·辩护律师郭国汀获准会见师涛
·长沙国安局无理拒绝辩护律师会见师涛
·答mironet质疑何谓真正的中国人权律师?
·向刘晓波,余杰先生学习,致敬!
·当一名律师无辜失去自由时——无题
***(2)民告官---行政诉讼案强制拆迁案
·国家赔偿行政诉讼案代理词
·政府欺诈何时休?!评一起政府参与非法强制拆迁案
·关于苏州市丽人服饰有限公司被非法强制拆迁案的法律分析意见
·苏州“历史文化街区”拆迁案代理词
·苏州市衣丽人服饰有限公司诉苏州市相城区建设局非法作出<房屋拆迁许可证>行政诉讼争议案
·关于苏州市丽人服饰有限公司被非法强制拆迁案的法律分析意见
·苏州市衣丽人服饰有限公司诉苏州市相城区建设局非法作出<房屋拆迁许可证>行政诉讼争议案代理词
·烟台「历史文化街区」拆迁案代理词
·社会公共利益与强制拆迁
·身残志坚受苦遭难的马亚莲二次劳教案:行政复议申请书/郭国汀
·马亚莲案代理词
·马亚莲因强迁上访两次劳教争议案行政上诉状
·上海黄浦区法院第三次变相密秘审判马亚莲二次劳教行政诉讼案/郭国汀
·苏州历史文化街区拆迁争议案上诉状
·苏州 “历史文化街区”拆迁争议上诉案代理词
·苏州“历史文化街区”拆迁案代理词
·敬请关注一起严重违法强制拆迁苏州相城区民营企业案
·非法强制拆迁民营企业争议案一审代理词/郭国汀
·一起非法强制拆迁争议案的法律意见书
·苏州市衣丽人服饰有限公司诉苏州市相城区建设局非法作出《房屋拆迁许可证》行政诉讼争议案代理词
·张锐诉上海市普陀区房屋土地管理局之行政诉讼案有关问题的初步法律意见
***(3)行政诉讼案
·征收船舶港务费行政争议案代理词
·行政处罚行政诉讼案上诉状
·谢安诉湖南省醴陵市工商行政管理局不当行政处罚案
·行政处罚行政诉讼案代理词
·对一起复杂行政诉讼案的法律思考
·虚假抵押行政侵权案代理词
·虚假抵押行政侵权上诉案代理词
·关于浦东公安分局扣押公司帐册及业务档案的法律意见书
·龙岩市恭发城市信用合作社诉龙岩市土地管理局国家行政赔偿争议案初步法律意见书
·虚假抵押行政侵权上诉状
·养老保险争议案初步法律意见
·赌博行政处罚争议案代理词
·征收船舶港务费行政争议案答辩状
·行政处罚(没收赌资)争议案再审申请书
·上海黄浦区法院第三次变相密秘审判马亚莲二次劳教行政诉讼案
***(4)重大涉外经贸争议案
·Ocean Glory 轮碰撞争议案代理词
·一起重大涉外提单侵权争议再审申请书
·评一起重大“委托贷款”纠纷案的两审判决
·一起重大信托存款合同争议再审申请书
·中外合资企业退股争议案代理词
·中外合资企业股权转让债务纠纷案代理词
·中外合资企业外方未出资争议案代理词
·无效中外合资企业合同争议案代理词
·台湾朝仁企业有限公司诉厦门龙立工业有限公司合资企业承包经营纠纷上诉案代理词
·海关行政处罚、行政侵权案代理词
·四百万美元外汇贷款担保合同争议上诉案
·中日合资企业解除合同争议案代理词
***(5)国际贸易名案要案
·重大国际货物买卖品质争议上诉案代理词
·国际货物买卖结算纠纷案代理词
·最高法院无理拖宕九年拒不下判再审案代理词
·外贸代理合同争议案再审申请书
·国际货物买卖结算争议案代理词
·外贸代理合同争议案上诉审代理词
·进出口外贸代理争议案初步法律意见书
***(6)典型刑事及重大刑事案
·为赖昌星遗返案我的宣誓证词
·公、检、党政联合办案与党的领导
·“反革命恶霸”案刑事申诉状
·马翔非法为境外提供国家秘密罪刑事上诉状
·全国首例法官告律师名誉侵权争议案
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights
   Author unknow
   南郭点评:争信仰自由权是第一批英国人来到美国的主要原因,而争代表权与自治权则是美国独立战争的主要动因,争全体公民的自由权则是美国内战的主要原因. 美国1798年颁布实施的Alien and Sedition Act, 规定:用错误、令人反感及恶意(的方式)描述政府构成犯罪即所谓诽谤政府罪。但宪法之父迈迪逊和杰弗逊均强烈反对该法。最后该法于1801年杰弗逊任总统后即被废除,因违反该法被拘禁的十几名违法者则全部无罪释放。依美国现行刑法则煽动暴力推翻合法政府只有在符合明显而即刻的危险”准则的情况下才可能构成犯罪,因此除非诽谤政府的煽动言论己经濒暴力边缘,而且危机迫在眉睫,否则应尽可能充分地保障这类言论的自由。亦即煽动非暴力方式推翻合法政府无罪!而中国刑法第105条第2款规定以造谣、诽谤或者其他方式煽动颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度的,构成煽动颠覆国家政权罪。亦即按照中共恶法,那怕煽动和平方式改变政府及所谓社会主义制度,均构成煽动颠覆国家政权罪!据此以观中国现行相关法律比美国至少落后了两百年!希特勒时代的德国法律规定:污蔑元首者得处两周以内的拘禁。而毛泽东时代则凡是公开喊出打倒毛泽东者甚至仅是在私人日记或书信中对毛不敬者即可能被枪决!而邓江胡时代以和平言论治重罪者成千上万!因此,中共是比法西斯残暴百倍甚至千倍的专制暴政!
   The Bill of Rights is the common name for Amendments 1 through 9 (the 10th Amendment is usually included under the heading of "Bill of Rights," since it was ratified with the other nine, but it does not technically recognize any rights).
   
   Americans have been concerned with their rights for hundreds of years. The right to practice religion however they wished was one of the primary reasons the first settlers came to America from England. The right of representation and self-determination was one of the primary reasons the Revolutionary War was fought. The right for all persons to be free was one of the reasons the Civil War was fought. American history is replete with bills of rights, from the most famous included in our Constitution, to the Declaration of Rights prompted by the Stamp Act to the Virginia Declaration of Rights written by George Mason for his state. Even today we speak of the apparently elusive Patient's Bill of Rights.
   What is interesting to note is that when the Constitutional Convention finished its work, it did not find it necessary to include a bill of rights in the final version. Several members, notably George Mason, were very disappointed by this decision and refused to sign the document over the issue. The argument was that the Constitution did not give the new federal government the ability to restrict inherent rights, so no list of those rights was necessary. Others worried that if the rights were listed, they would invariably forget some and the list would ever be incomplete. Finally, the argument was that the states each had their own constitutions, too, and that rights were best protected at a state level.
   Of all the issues that the Anti-Federalists gave for rejecting the new constitution, the lack of a bill of rights was the most compelling for many people. In the ratifying documents of five states, requests or demands for a bill of rights were included in the text, along with suggested lists (see the ratifying documents of Massachusetts, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York. Rhode Island also included a list, but they ratified the Constitution after the first Congress approved the Bill of Rights).
   The Federalists were opposed to adding a bill of rights, expounding on the reasons why in Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 84. Among the reasons listed was a list of the personal protections the new constitution did contain, such as the prohibition of ex post facto laws, the inviolate habeas corpus, and the restrictions on a conviction of treason. Federalist 85 addressed the subject, too, noting that amendment is always a possibility after ratification. It turns out, once the process of ratification was complete, that this was exactly the route taken.
   The first Congress under the Constitution had a lot to accomplish. It had many new powers not available to the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, and every state had interests it wanted to protect. James Madison, seen by many as the father of the Constitution, had won a seat in the House of Representatives, running partly on a platform that included a fight for a bill of rights. This may seem odd since Madison was one of those who advocated the omission of such a list of rights, but he eventually became convinced of the necessity.
   Madison tried to get the debate moving, but debate on tariffs and other pressing issues always pushed the debate on a bill of rights to the back burner. Madison finally had enough and on June 8, 1789, he presented his draft of a bill of rights to get the discussion moving.
   From June to September, both houses of Congress debated Madison's list, along with the lists presented by the states. Rights were enumerated, removed, modified, tweaked. Eventually, both houses agreed on twelve articles of amendment and sent them to the states. Two years later, in 1791, the last ten of these original twelve were ratified by the states and they became a part of the Constitution. By custom, the amendments were added to the end of the original document, rather than inserted in the text, as Madison had envisioned. All ten of the original amendments are referred to as The Bill of Rights, though only the first nine pertain to the people (Amendment 10 pertains to the states, though it mentions the people in parallel).
   
   Bar to Federal Action
   The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is, however, quite in line with what the Constitution was originally designed to be: a framework for the federal government. In other words, though the federal government was banned from violating the freedom of the press, states were free to regulate the press. For the most part, this was not an issue, because the state constitutions all had bills of rights, and many of the rights protected by the states mirrored those in the federal Bill, and many went further than the federal Bill.
   This point is best illustrated by one of the amendments that Madison proposed in his initial speech:
   Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:
   No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
   The Senate in its final draft of the Bill rejected this clause, seemingly innocuous to us today,, and the concept that any part of the Bill of Rights would apply to the states was still 100 years away. Several cases that came before the Supreme Court in the 19th century attempted to have the Court establish that the Bill should apply to the states, to no avail:
   In Barron v. Baltimore (32 U.S. 243 [1833]), the Court ruled that the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment did not apply to the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland by extension. Succinctly, the Court wrote: "...the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states."
   In Pervear v. Massachusetts (72 U.S. 475 [1866]), the Court was asked to rule on fines imposed upon a liquor dealer by the state. Pervear was licensed by the United States under the current internal revenue code to keep and sell liquor. He was fined and sentenced to three months of hard labor for not maintaining a state license for his liquor business. Part to the defense attempted to invoke the 8th Amendment's Excessive Fines and Cruel and Unusual Punishment clauses. The Court, again quite succinctly, said: "Of this proposition it is enough to say that the article of the Constitution relied upon in support of it does not apply to State but to National legislation."
   As to the Bill of Rights being a bar to federal acts, the Bill took some knocks in the first years of the new nation. The 1798 Alien and Sedition Act, for example, made nationals of countries the United States was at war with subject to summary arrest, and also made "false, scandalous and malicious" writings about the government a crime, with the burden of proof placed squarely on the shoulders of the defendant rather than the state. Madison and Thomas Jefferson were both adamantly opposed to the Act, and said that being unconstitutional, states were free to ignore (or nullify) the law. The Act, repealed in 1801, was never ruled unconstitutional.

[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