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
·我眼中的高智晟
·郭国汀 从我的经历看中共当局诽谤高智晟的下流
·所谓高智晟公开声明及悔罪书肯定是伪造的
·真正的中国人的伟大怒吼!
·加拿大著名人权律师安世立支持声援全球绝食抗暴的声明
·闻律师英雄高智晟再遇车祸有感 郭国汀
·呼吁全球万人同步大绝食宣言
·全球接力绝食抗暴运动的伟大意义 郭国汀
·郭国汀声援和平抗暴 呼吁抛弃中共
·中国律师界应全力声援高智晟
·专家剖析高智晟煽动颠覆国家政权案
·抓捕关押高智晟的整个过程都是违法的/郭国汀
·中共迫害高智晟亲人丧心病狂,中共党魁胡锦涛难辞其咎
·绝食维权抗暴日记
·郭国汀 漠视大陆维权是一种自杀行为
·英雄伟人与超人高智晟
·告全体中国律师及法律人书----闻高智晟被秘密绑架感言
·郭国汀: 高智晟遭秘密绑架可能成为中共灭亡的导火索
·给真正的中国女人的公开信
·郭国汀:驳刘荻的非理性投射说
·决不与中共专制暴政同流合污--------第29个全球接力绝食抗暴日记 郭国汀
·一部见证当代中国社会现实的伟大纪实作品--序高智晟《中国民间企业维权第一案》
·郭国汀呼吁国际重视高智晟妻儿的遭遇
·将接力绝食抗暴运动进行至最后胜利
·我为中华律师英雄杨在新喝彩 郭国汀
·郭国汀向老戚致敬
·万众一心,众志成城——全球万人同步绝食抗暴日记 郭国汀
·责令中共当局立即无条件释放兰州大学学生刘西峰!郭国汀
·加拿大著名人权律师ANSLEY支持声援全球绝食抗暴运动的声明
·郭国汀:中国律师应当向高智晟,浦志强律师学习!
***(45)人权研究
***中国人权律师基金会
·郭国汀推荐黄金秋竞选[第三届中国自由文化运动政论奖]推荐函
·郭国汀提名陈泱潮为2009中国自由文化奖之文化成就奖获奖候选人
·郭国汀提名张博树为2009中国自由文化奖之法学奖获奖候选人
·推荐郭国汀先生参选2009年台湾民主人权奖书
·letter of recommendation of Guoting for 2008 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award
·提名郭國汀律師作為[第三屆亞洲民主與人權獎]候選人的推薦函
·支持郭国汀律师负责组建中国人权律师基金会
·第二届《中国自由文化奖》评奖程序的修改建议
·郭国汀提名张鉴康律师作为第二届自由文化奖之人权奖候选人
·关于提名陈泱潮竞选[中国自由文化运动文化成就奖]推荐函
·推荐郭国汀先生参选第三届「亞洲民主人權獎」推荐书
·Letter of recommendation of Guoting Guo for 2008 The Third Asian Democracy and Human Rights Award
***(46)关注西藏新疆少数民族人权
·解决西藏问题的最佳方案--宪政联邦体制
·中共政权对藏民族所犯下的罪恶
·西藏自古以来属于中国吗?--西藏与中国关系简史
·什么是西藏问题?
·达赖啦嘛论解决西藏问题的原则
·中共宗教灭绝政策的实质是从精神心灵上扼杀藏人
·西藏自古以来属于中国吗?
·西藏问题的实质
·自由法治宪政民主联邦体制是解决西藏问题的最佳方案
·达赖啦嘛最常使用的词汇
·达赖啦嘛的使命与梦想
·达赖啦嘛论西藏问题的实质
·达赖啦嘛论西藏文明文化和历史
·达赖啦嘛论解决西问题的原则
·达赖啦嘛论爱同情怜悯与慈悲
·达赖啦嘛论藏传佛教的价值
·是中共暴政而非汉族奴役迫害藏民族!
·新疆暴亂是中共流氓暴政故意利用民族茅盾转嫁统治危机人为泡制的惨案
·坚决支持藏民维民争自由,平等,人权,民主的英勇抗暴运动
·从图片新闻看达赖喇嘛的国际影响力
·达赖喇嘛语录郭国汀译
·蜡烛与阳光争辉------从温家宝批达赖喇嘛说开去
·达赖喇嘛代表流亡政府及全体藏民与中国政府和平谈判理所当然----兼与王希哲兄商榷
·三一四西藏暴乱事件的真相
·布什总统再度敦促中国(中共)与达赖喇嘛对话
·达赖喇嘛抵美国西图参加为期五天的慈善的科学基础大会,据称150000门票全部售出
·布什总统出席奥运开幕式已不确定
·达赖喇嘛今天重申不抵制奥运会
·布什总统决意出席奥运开幕式并非仅由于他性格顽固
***(47)人权律师法律实务
·郭国汀:中国人没有基本人权——2008年加拿大国会中国人权研讨会专稿
·我为何从海事律师转向人权律师?
·盛雪专访郭国汀从海事律师转变成人权律师的心路历程
·我从海事律师转变成人权律师的思想根源
·郭国汀律师受中共政治迫害的直接原因
·我从海事律师转变成人权律师的心路历程
·成为一名人权律师!---郭国汀律师专访
·一个中国人权律师的真实故事
·世界人权日感言/郭国汀
·人权漫谈/南郭
·人权佳话
·保障人权律师的基本人权刻不容缓
·不敢或不愿为法轮功作无罪辩护的律师,不是真正的人权律师!
·人权律师辩护律师必读之公正审判指南(英文)
·我为什么推崇中国人权律师浦志强?
·巴黎律师公会采访中国人权律师郭国汀
·
·人权律师的职责与使命----驳李建强关于严正学力虹案件的声明
·驳斥刘路有关六四屠城的荒唐谬论
·李建强律师与郭国汀律师的公开论战
·李建强与郭国汀律师的论战之二
·英雄多多益善!郭国汀
[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