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]->[法治的精神]
郭国汀律师专栏
·互联网自由至关重要:中国屈居全球互联网最不自由国家亚军
·互联网自由度的测定方法
·自由之家2008年中国互联网自由检测报告:不自由
·互联网自由日益增长的各种威胁
·国际互联网自由调查团队
·国际互联网自由评价词汇表
·国际互联网自由评价表格和图示
·国际互联网自由评价目录
·古巴互联网自由评价
·伊朗互联网自由评价
·突尼斯互联网自由评价
·俄国互联网自由评价
·马来西亚互联网自由评价
·土耳其互联网自由评定
·肯尼亚互联网自由评价
·埃及互联网自由评价
·印度互联网自由评价
·乔治亚互联网自由评价
·南非互联网自由评价
·巴西互联网自由评价
·英国互联网自由评定
·全球最自由的爱莎尼亚互联网自由评价
***(22)《仗剑走天涯》郭国汀著
·我的真实心声
·面对十八层地狱,我的真情告白 /南郭 网友评论
·《仗剑微言—我的四十自述>
·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
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
法治的精神

法治的精神
   
   南郭点评:“美国革命”其实并非共产党主张的那种所谓革命,而是属于几无破坏性,富有建设性的社会政治经济制度的进化。法国思想家芦棱的著作在美国人几乎无人问津,美国独立战争期间对美国人影响最大的乃是Sidney, Harrington and Locke等人的著作。美国人实质上是在英国社会政治经济体制基础上,坚持法治反对专断与尊重个人权利,强调保障人权,不断进行政治改良进化发展而成为今日自由宪政民主国家。法治精神是对抗专制暴政的最有力的武器之一。
   
   

   
    Rule of law not revolution
   
   By Robert N. Wilkin [1]
   
   
   
   
   
    “ When we proclaim that we are revolutionaries and boast of our revolutionary spirit, the author states, we play into the hands of the communists and add to the confusion of their Marxian dialectic and "upside-down language". There is error and confusion in the word "revolution"; history, semantics, logic and clear thinking suggest the use of some other word to characterize our country's purpose today.”[2]
   
   
   
    THE BOLSHEVIK dictatorship is vigorously conducting a world revolution against all traditional forms of government and standards of politics, morality, religion and culture. When we proclaim that we are revolutionaries and boast of our revolutionary spirit we play into the hands of the Bolsheviks and add to the confusion of their Marxian dialectic and "upside- down language". Their revolution is wholly destructive and offers nothing to replace what they seek to destroy.What we are championing and defending is freedom under law, not dictatorship. The history and spirit of our institutions are constructive, not destructive.
   
   
   
    Newspapers reported that President Kennedy, before he left for his meeting with Soviet Premier Khrushchev, said: "I go to Vienna as the leader of the greatest revolutionary country on earth. Our knees do not tremble at the word 'revolution'. We believe in it." And William 0. Douglas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, wrote an article entitled. "The U. S. and the Revolutionary Spirit", published in Saturday Review, June 10, 1961, the first sentence of which was, "We Americans were born in revolution." The editorial statement at the beginning of the article said, "The United States has traditionally gloried in its revolutionary heritage."
   
   
   
    At once it must be clearly and emphatically stated that the President, the Justice and the editors were not intentionally favoring or supporting the communist revolution. The purpose of their statements was to convey our traditional sympathy for all oppressed peoples who struggle against tyranny and despotism. Loyal Americans would agree with the substance of their remarks. It is the purpose of this discussion merely to point out the error and confusion in the word "revolution". history, semantics, logic and clear thinking suggest the use of some term other than "revolution" to characterize our purpose today.
   
   
   
    War of Independence Was Not a Revolution
   
   
   
    Historians and political scientists of highest authority have explained repeatedly that our War for Independence was not a revolution but a continuance of the evolution of human rights that had been progressing for centuries in England. Historians have referred to England as a nation "marked by a sturdy sense of right". That sense of right and respect for law have marked the Anglo-Saxon race generally. It was owing to their inherited devotion to such principles that the American colonies separated themselves from the British Empire. The establishment of an independent nation in America was not a revolution in the Marxist sense, but a continued assertion of the convictions that had asserted themselves successfully in England. It is that same devotion to law against arbitrary will that continues to unite English-speaking people in the defense of human rights against the forms of absolutism which threaten them today.
   
   
   
    John Fiske, in The Critical Period of American History, in discussing the reforms of Colonial governments prior to the War of Independence, said, "except for expulsion of the royal and proprietary governors, the work had in no instance been revolutionary in its character". He said further:
   
   
   
    It was not so much that the American people gained an increase of freedom by their separation from England, as that they kept the freedom they had always enjoyed, that freedom which was the inalienable birthright of Englishmen, but which George III had foolishly sought to impair. The American Revolution was therefore in no respect destructive. It was the most conservative revolution known to history, thoroughly English in conception from beginning to end. It had no likeness whatever to the terrible popular convulsion which soon after took place in France. The mischievous doctrines of Rousseau had found few readers and fewer admirers among the Americans. The principles upon which their revolution was conducted were those of Sidney, Harrington and Locke. In remodelling the state governments, as in planning the union of the states, the precedents followed and the principles applied were almost purely English.
   
   
   
    The colonies, having been founded largely by men opposed to the imperious will of the King, continued their struggle for rights of Englishmen. The opposition in England to taxes imposed by the King became in America opposition to "taxation without representation". The sentiment in England against the despotic orders of the Star Chainher and High Commission was reasserted in the colonial Resolves "that all trials for any crime whatsoever should be within the Colony by known course of law". The arbitrary orders of the King in the colonies became an issue on both sides of the ocean. That the colonists were continuing the struggle for the supremacy of law is shown by the fact that they were championed on both sides of the Atlantic by the ablest lawyers. The rights of the colonists were defended in England by Sir Robert Walpole, Edmund Burke, William Pitt, Charles James Fox and others. In America the opposition was led by men who personified the spirit of the common law. They based their claims and arguments on the teachings of Coke, who had based his arguments against arbitrary usurpation of power on the teachings of Bracton. They insisted that the arbitrary acts of the Crown were against the Constitution of England and therefore void.
   
   
   
    Word "Revolution" Is Harmful to Us
   
   
   
    When the King sent his soldiers to enforce his orders, the colonists took up arms against them. Those who bear arms in defense of lawful order are not revolutionaries. It is true that the efforts of the colonies for independence became known generally as the American Revolution. Justice Douglas regrets that after World War II "we lost our pride in 'revolution' as an American concept". We should regret, however, that that word was ever accepted as an American concept. It was not so harmful formerly, but today it puts us in a class with the Marxists.
   
   
   
    The President, in connection with his statements quoted above, said, "We believe in the progress of mankind-we believe in freedom." That belief is sustained by "government not of men, but of law". Justice Douglas stated that Australia, New Zealand and North America, during this century, have not been interested in revolution for themselves, "because their institutions usually had built-in procedures for change". A felicitous phrase to distinguish rule of law from despotic rule!
   
   
   
    He stated also that under Gandhi "India experienced an awakening that generated more power than tanks and artillery". India gained its independence without a revolution, and India retained Anglo-American jurisprudence as the law of the land. Its courts cite the decisions of English and American courts as authority for their decisions.
   
   
   
    Justice Douglas concedes that "We, as democrats, cannot become subversive in the communist style and form undergrounds within each nation, undergrounds bent on overthrow by force and violence." We therefore should not identify and degrade our cause by use of the word "revolution". We should not glamorize a word which Marxism has distorted in world opinion.

[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