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]->[什么是宪政?]
郭国汀律师专栏
·时空畅想/郭国汀
·文革教训原因考/郭国汀
·对物质的思考/郭国汀
·精神文明与物质文明/郭国汀
·内因与外因关系的沉思
·外因是决定事物运动变化发展的根本原因
·开放党禁与多党联合政治
·论质、量互变关系
·如何理解劳动?——有感于中国1956—1959年之“三大改造”
·人类与自然环境
·共产主义是违背自然规律的妄想
***(57)网友评价评论与批评郭国汀
·一代大师
·良好的名誉是人们在任何时代任何社会安身立命之本
·各界人士对郭国汀律师高度评价
·浦志强、张思之大律师评价郭国汀
·清水君(黄金秋):我要特别感谢郭国汀大律师
·上海美女评价郭国汀律师
·欧阳小戎忆郭国汀律师
·不要迫害中国的脊梁 ──郭国汀
·良心律师,人权大侠!
·为国为民 侠之大者——郭国汀
·被缚的普罗米修司----
·感谢郭国汀律师
·让英雄的血流在光天化日之下
·声援中国人权律师郭国汀、强烈反对中共利用司法机器釜底抽薪镇压维权运动征集签名书
·谁是当代中国最高贵的人?
·答浦志强对郭国汀的批评
·警惕:中共对郭国汀律师的迫害并没有中止
·从郭国汀案看中国法制的崩毁
·值得大学生与爱国愤青一读的戏剧
·大中学生及爱国愤青的娱乐读物
·刘路与郭国汀之间的友情
·刘路(李建强)共特真相大暴露
·为什么说李建强(刘路)是共特?
·欢迎李建强公开辩污论战
·我与刘晓波先生的恩怨
·我与英雄警官之间的友谊
·律师为英雄辩护的最佳策略
·敬请张耀杰先生公开向郭国汀大律师赔礼道歉的公开函
·郭国汀训斥张耀杰
·怒斥张耀杰----南郭系当之无愧的大律师!
·痛斥張耀傑----予汝真诚道欠的最后通谍!
·郭国汀痛斥假冒伪劣人格低下的[学者]張耀傑
***周游列国 漂泊四海
·我的哥本哈根之旅
·梦幻湖畔之春晖
·加国白雪公主之宫
·雪中加国风情
·圣诞日维多利亚雪宫
·我的总统跑道
·我的超五星级总统跑道之二
·迷人的维多利亚风光
·维多利亚人间仙境
·海上明珠维多利亚精景
·世上最美的往往是大自然
·郭国汀在渥太华和世外桃源
·郭国汀律师在温哥华
·冬吟白雪诗
·山青水秀地灵人杰
·与传统观念彻底决裂?!
·文明与传统
·轻松愉快的国庆节游行
·我的巴黎之旅
·浪际天涯孤独客
·郭国汀律师在纽伦堡
·余之法朗克福之行
·吾之法朗克福之游
·感受纽伦堡
·观光德国古城堡
·纽伦古城堡风光依旧
·感受如诗如画的世外桃源美景
·观光布鲁塞尔
·风景如画的莱茵河畔
·郭国汀律师出席布鲁塞尔第二届全球支持亚洲民主化大会留影
·郭国汀律师在德国法郎克福
·郭国汀律师在德国法郎克福
·郭国汀律师在德国法郎克福留莲忘返
***(58)郭国汀律师名案要案抗辩实录
***(一)郭国汀律师为清水君抗辩
·郭国汀我为什么为清水君辩护?
·律师郭国汀对黄金秋(清水君)颠覆国家政权案辩护大纲
·清水君网上组党案刑事上诉状
·江苏高院强行书面审判清水君上诉案
·黄金秋(清水君)颠覆国家政权上诉案辩护词纲要
·清水君案上诉辩护词附件
·清水君案江苏高院驳回上诉维持原判
·中共伪法官评黄金秋颠覆国家政权案
·郭国汀律师清水君颠覆国家政权案研究
·郭国汀归纳清水君思想论点主旨言论集
·郭国汀就黄金秋颠覆国家政权上诉案致江苏省高级法院院长函
·郭国汀致狱中清水君函
·郭国汀律师第五次会见清水君
·狱中会见清水君手记
·郭国汀就清水君案上诉审江苏高级法院刑一庭王振林法官函
·作家黄金秋被无罪判重刑十二年辩护律师郭国汀谴责中共司法不公
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
什么是宪政?

什麽是憲政?
   
   
   
   郭国汀

   
   
   
   宪政正日益成为国人的热门话题,但何谓宪政?恐怕并非人人明白。简言之,宪政即宪法至上,分权制衡限制政府权力,充分保障国民基本人权的政治体制。
   
   宪政体制有如下要素:首先,政治社会建立在人民主权这一基本概念之上;其次,定期真实的多党自由竞选;再次,通过立法、行政、司法三权分立,分权制衡的安排限制政府的权力;第四,独立司法和确实的法治,以保障司法公正;最后,国家保障国民个人的公民权和政治权力,因为这是不可剥夺让与的基本人权。宪政体制是人类社会经数千年政治实践从野蛮走向文明总结发明创造出来的最佳政府形式。宪政学者哈贝马斯认为:“宪政并非语言、文化和民族的自然而然的产物,而是人类政治意志选择的产物”。[1]质言之,宪政是人类共同政治制度财产,人人皆用权享用之。
   
   美国宪法之父第四任总统迈迪逊指出了宪政的原因:“如果人都是天使,何需任何政府;如果由天使统治人,哪还需要对政府进行任何外部或内在的控制”。他论证道“既然人非天使,为了防抑人性的弱点,提升人性善良的一面,就必须对政府设置种种内在和外部的控制,只有给予各部门主管抵制其它部门的必要法定手段及鼓励个人的积极主动性,才有可能防止某些权力逐渐集中于同一部门的情况。‘野心必须用野心制约’,要迫使处于统治地位的人行使政治权力时,只能(不是自觉)作为公众利益的保护人,而无法实践粗暴、自私的个人意志”。[2]亦即宪政的基本假设乃是人性本恶,按基督教原理,人类皆有天生的原罪诸如:贪婪、自私、懒惰、好色,若不加限制约束或限制不力,人类难免被具有强酸性质的权力所腐蚀变质,因此,高明的政治家设计出能充分制约当权者预防其滥用权力的机制。
   
   人类对绝对权力似乎拥有永恒的爱好,无论君主,还是贵族寡头,或是纯民主政府概莫能外。“我即是国家!”法国路易十六世如是说;而1793年法国革命雅格滨设立的民主绝对权力也导致暴政;俄国布尔什维克党1917年十月革命,列宁创建了人类历史上第一个共产党极权暴政;中共1949年建立的则是党天下为特征的特权寡头独裁绝对权力,因而中共政权成为极权暴政是必然的。印证了阿克顿勋爵之"绝对权力导致绝对腐败“的政治学定律的真理性。因此,无论是个人或是少数人还是多数人的专制,都是对人民生命安全和幸福快乐人生的严重威胁,宪政的目标就在于防止政府的权力腐败,保障公民个体的基本权利,因而必须限制制约政府的权力。宪政就是政府必须按照由基本法(宪法)制定的制度和法律原则在最高法律授予的范围内行使权力,因此宪政即是专门研究如何有效限制制约政府权力的理论与实践。
   
   
   
   宪政与自由、法治、人权、独立司法、民主、共和密不可分。绝对权力的政府与宪政政府的主要区别在于前者对政府权力没有任何有效力量制约,既无独立司法,也没有自由媒体,当然不可能有法治,因而独裁当权者极易滥用权力随心所欲任意妄为,演变成专制暴政;后者则政府权力受到法治约束的分权制衡机制的调整,政府权力受到自由媒体和在野反对党及公众的全面监督制约;独立司法依法治原则裁断是非,维护公道,因而多能维护社会正义与公平,较充分保障国民基本人权,从而人民生活自由快乐幸福有实质保障。
   
   中共政权之所以反动腐败无能下流无耻残暴邪恶致极,其根本原因之一正在于中共政权是个不受任何外部力量有效限制制约的绝对独裁权力,因而其必然演变成绝对腐败与绝对残暴的暴政。为了全体国人切身根本长远利益,必须尽早抛弃推翻极端反动腐败无能残暴邪恶致极的中共极权专制流氓暴政!
   
   2009年3月28日
   
   [1] Habermas, a historical mistake has already been made. The democratic, constitutional state should not be seen as naturally determined by sharing language, culture, and national fate but as a result of a deliberate act of political will. Therefore, every citizen should have had the right to vote for or against the reunification
   
   [2] Edited by J.E.Cooke, The Federalist, Wesleyan University Press (Middletown Connecticut 1961)NO.51 James Madison PP.347-353. 迈迪逊《联邦党人文集》
   
   
   
   
   
   
   附:Constitutional Government
   
   John Cameron Simonds.
   
    Determined by the quality or character of its power, government may be generally
   
    classified as either absolute or constitutional. Benjamin Constant, a publicist of the Restoration, defined absolute power "as the absence of rule. of limit, of definition:" as the absence of all limitation to supreme power, and "of all independent powers to form a counterpoise." Wherever lodged, absolute power is the same, and admits of no rule or limit from without. Whether in form a monarchy or democracy, its underlying principle is: "power is the only foundation of the right to wield it."
   
    No ancient statesman, writes Dr. Lieber, "ever doubted the extent of supreme power. If the people possessed it, no one ever hesitated in allowing to them absolute power over every one and over everything. If it passed from the people to the few, or was usurped by one, in many cases they considered the acquisition of power unlawful, but never doubted its unlimited extent." To this conception, in ancient Greece, may be ascribed the death of Socrates, and the banishment of Aristides. For monarchical government, it was expressed by Justinian in the words: "Whatever pleases the prince has the force of law;" and by Louis XIV. in his famous aphorism: "I am the state." In France, the Jacobin convention of 1793 was a striking example of democratic absolutism; as a political organization, it assumed omnipotent power, and in its name perpetrated heinous crimes against liberty and right.
   
    The very opposite of this is constitutional government; for the reason, its powers are exercised in accordance with a " system of fundamental laws and principles." The legitimate powers of such a government are those only which accord with its primary organization, and are consistent with its limitations and definitions,
   
    A constitution usually supplements existing institutions, wherein it is grounded; it presupposes an established order of things; as an organon of government, the instrument presumes certain personal and property rights which it is intended to define, to protect and to preserve. A constitution is, therefore, efficient in the precise degree to which it restrains the exercise of power, wherever lodged or however distributed.
   
    Essentially, then, whatever form a government may assume, it is constitutional only when instituted rights are protected by restrictions and guarantees. In the words of Francis Lieber: "Civil liberty does not exist when any one, or any two, or any three, or any thousand, or any million, can do what they have the mere power to do. Arbitrary power does not become less arbitrary because it is the united power of many."
   
    Again, it is barely sufficient to define a Constitutional government as one having a "system of fundamental rules, principles and ordinances." Even an Asiatic despotism must respect the customs, traditions and opinions of its subjects. It would be difficult to find a government so absolute that it could wholly disregard that which had become customary and habitual in a people.
   
    Venice was once a constitutional aristocracy, as indeed were all the so-called republics of northern Italy. Great Britain presents the best example of what may be designated a constitutional monarchy. However, in each of the instances above mentioned, some department of the state was above or without the constitution; in the Venetian state it was the directory, once so despotic and sanguinary, while in England, parliament is politically omnipotent.
   
    This is not the American idea of a constitution. In the United States, absolute power does not exist in any department of the government, whether state or federal. In other words, with us, all government is the creature of a constitution, which is the only legitimate source and measure of its power; as all powers not granted by that instrument are "reserved," our system of government is an express limitation upon the powers of political agents, who may be properly re- strained only when their authority is strictly construed. Particularly is this true of the general government. A latitudinarian construction of delegated authority must eventuate in an emasculation of reserved rights; while the form may remain, the spirit will have departed. To quote the illustrious Marshall: "To what purpose are powers limited and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing if those limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited or unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."

[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