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]->[分權制衡理論的历史淵源]
郭国汀律师专栏
·《民族英雄蒋介石》53、剿共匪--攘外必先安内
·《民族英雄蒋介石》54、55、56 “九一八事变”
·《民族英雄蒋介石》57 日本侵华与国联
·《民族英雄蒋介石》58 忍辱负重
·《民族英雄蒋介石》59、上海“一二八”抗战
·《民族英雄蒋介石》60、皮肉伤与心脏病
·《民族英雄蒋介石》61儒雅绅士 基督情怀
·《民族英雄蒋介石》62、国家危机和国内政治
·《民族英雄蒋介石》63、国家团结会议,蒋介石再辞职
·《民族英雄蒋介石》64日本攻占锦州,蒋介石复职
·《民族英雄蒋介石》65、国军上海一二八抗战
·《民族英雄蒋介石》66、伪满洲国成立
·《民族英雄蒋介石》67、心慈手软
·《民族英雄蒋介石》68、福建平叛
·《民族英雄蒋介石》69、剿匪
·《民族英雄蒋介石》70、西安事变
·《民族英雄蒋介石》71、七七卢沟桥事变
·《民族英雄蒋介石》72、沪淞会战
·《民族英雄蒋介石》73、悲壮的南京保卫战
·《民族英雄蒋介石》74.南京大屠杀
·《民族英雄蒋介石》75.血战台儿庄
·《民族英雄蒋介石》76 英勇的太原保卫战
***(33)《匪首毛泽东》郭国汀编译
·《匪首毛泽东》
·《匪首毛泽东》郭国汀编译
·《匪首毛泽东》2、毛泽东滥杀政敌
·《匪首毛泽东》3、共匪滥杀无辜,十万红军将士地方党干魂飞魄散
·《匪首毛泽东》5、冷血毛泽东为权力疯狂滥杀红军将士
·《匪首毛泽东》6、毛泽东周恩来诱骗张学良发动西安事变
·《匪首毛泽东》7、受苏联指令张治中挑起八一三上海抗战
·《匪首毛泽东》8、中共假抗日真勾结日寇,狠打抗日国军
·《匪首毛泽东》9、平型关战斗和百团大战
·《匪首毛泽东》10、宛南事变:毛为争权借刀杀项英
·《匪首毛泽东》11、延安洗脑运动中共种植贩卖毒品
· 《匪首毛泽东》12、发动国共内战的罪魁是毛泽东!
·《匪首毛泽东》19.极度无知而狂妄自大的毛泽东
***中国问题研究
***(34)《论中共极权专制暴政的本质》郭国汀著
·共产党极权专制暴政的变革
·论中国共产党极权暴政的滔天罪孽
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》之二
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共夺取政权以前的杀人罪孽
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共盗国窃政后的滥杀罪孽
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共谋杀性大饥荒
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》毛共文革罪孽深重
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》六四天安门屠城
·《中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共统治西藏罪孽深重
·《郭律师论中共极权流氓暴政》郭国汀著
·共产党极权暴政为争权夺利党内自相残杀的罪恶
·论推翻中共极权专制暴政的合法性
·中共政权始终是一个非法政权 郭国汀
·驳中共政权合法论 郭国汀
·中共极权暴政是严重污染毁灭中国生态环境的罪魁祸首
·论中共政权新闻控制-----2008年《巴黎中国新闻媒体控制国际研讨会》专稿
·论中共专制暴政与酷刑(全文)
·论中共专制暴政下的宗教信仰自由(英文)
·中国共产党极权专制流氓暴政的滔天罪孽
·中共政权是一个极权专制流氓暴政
·《郭国汀评论》第十九集:论中共暴政
·《郭国汀评论》第二十集:论中共暴政(下)
·郭国汀评论:论中共政权是个超级暴政
·郭国汀评论:论中共政权是个极权暴政
·郭国汀评论:论中共政权是个流氓暴政
·郭国汀评论:论中共是个犯罪组织
·论中共的骗子本能
·《郭国汀评论》第六集中共暴政与精神病
·郭国汀评论:论中共暴政体制性司法腐败
·郭国汀评论:论中共暴政体制性司法腐败(下)
·论逼良为娼的中共律师体制
·论逼良为娼的中共律师体制(下)
· 郭律师评价中共律师诉讼及司法体制现状
·郭国汀评论第八十三集:暴政恶法不除,国民无宁日
· 郭国汀评论第八十四集:暴政恶法不除,国民无宁日(下)
·郭国汀评论第六十六集中国共产党极权暴政的滔天罪行
·郭国汀评论第六十七集:中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽
·郭国汀评论第六十八集:中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪行
·郭国汀评论第六十九集:中共极权流氓暴政的滔天罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十集:中共极权专制暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十一集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十二集:中共极权流氓暴政的滔天罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十三集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十四集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十五集:中共极权流氓暴政的滔天大罪
·郭国汀评论第七十六集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十七集:共产党极权暴政的缩命
·郭国汀评论第七十八集:论共产党极权暴政的宿命(中)
·郭国汀评论第七十九集:论共产党极权暴政的宿命(下)
·郭国汀评论第八十集:中共极权暴政摧残教育的深重罪孽
·共产党极权专制暴政的滥杀罪孽
·中共极权暴政的野蛮残暴杀人罪孽
·中共人为制造谋杀性大饥荒虐杀农民5000万
·中国反对派不能合作的根源何在?
·共产主义是好的,只是被共产党搞糟了?
·中共极权暴政下根本不可能存在法治
·今日中共还是共产党吗?
·推翻中共专制暴政是替天行道 郭国汀
·中共政权是吸血鬼暴政
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
分權制衡理論的历史淵源


   
分權制衡理論的历史淵源

   自由是最美丽的
   
   分权制衡理論的历史淵源

   
   郭国汀
   
   
   分权制衡理论是宪政理论的核心,也是西方政治思想家对人类社会政治制度建设最伟大的贡献之一。中国人之所以走不出25史低水准重复怪圈,其 中最重要的原因之一乃是在中国历史上从来都是中央集权,而中共则变本加厉由中央集权变成更恶劣,更坏更邪恶的独裁专制极权。分权理论萌芽于古希腊亚里士多德(Aristotle)时代,约翰络克(John Locke)将其发杨光大,孟德斯鸠(Montesquieu)使之完善,美国开国元勋亚当斯首次将该理论真正付诸实施,从而开创了人类社会政治历史的新篇章。
   
   合同自由政治学理论认为政府乃“必要的恶”,人民同意被管理乃是基于获取最大限度的社会自由。政府权力分成三个部门的分析最早始于古希腊雅典的亚里士多德。他在《政治学》中指出:每个国家均分为三个部分:处理公共事务的一般议会(立法机构),地方法官和司法部门。[1]亚氏实质上仅提及两权即立法和司法,因为法官应归类于司法,而未提及行政权。亚氏或许因重视法治的重要作用以致忽视了行政权。他认为“政府的目的是正义”, “法治的和稳定的宪政是最佳的政府”,此种宪政应当建立在广大中产阶级基础上,在富人与穷人之间要有一个庞大的中产阶级作为平衡。亦即亚氏虽有阶级平衡的概念,但他从未提出三权分立相互制约平衡的概念。
   
   继亚里士多德之后,古希腊罗马历史学家波里斯(Polybius)首次提出了政府机构分离的概念。[2]古罗马著名律师和法学家西赛罗(Cicero)亦确认:“Statu esse optimo constitutam rem publicam, qua ex tribus generibus illis, regali et optumati et populari, confuse modice.”[3]
   
   Milton 在其“Ready and Easy Way to establish a Free Commonwealth”中为权力集中于一个实体辩护。Turgot认为最理想的完美政府,乃是单一的议会拥有立法、司法和行政所有权力。[4]
   
   此后,有关政府分权理论的争辩没有什么起色。直到约翰洛克在其《政府论》中首次明确政府的三权:立法、行政和联邦。但他的联邦是指战争与和平权,结盟或同盟权及与所有不属联邦的社区的所有的人的交往权力;他主张将联邦权力(实质上是外交权)与行政权交由同一个部门行使。他认为立法和行政权分别由不同的部门行使最佳。但他却忽视了司法独立的重要性,因为他认为司法权仅是行政权的一个分支。他将政府权力划分为立法,行政和联邦(外交)三权并不科学,因为外交权往往涉及立法与行政权,有时还涉及司法权。因此,他的分权实质上仍然仅是二权分立。对于分权理论而言,他是介于亚里士多德与孟德斯鸠之间的人物。而孟氏首次提出了完整的政府分权的立法、行政和司法三权分立限制政府权力的理论和政府各部门之间相互制约平衡的政治设计,分权制衡成为现代政治科学的基本原则。
   
   孟德斯鸠对政府分权制衡理论的独创性的贡献在于他将三权严格分离。其经典名言被世界上无数法学家们反复引证:“如果将立法权和行政权集中在同一个人或部门手中,就不会有自由,因为此种担忧很可能出现:同一个君王或议会将任意颁布暴虐的法律并以暴虐的方式执行该恶法。”“假如司法权不与立法权和行政权分离,则同样没有自由。假使司法权与立法权相结合,臣民的生命与自由将受任意控制,因为法官将变成立法者。要是司法权与行政权合一,法官就可能象一个暴君那样行事裁断。若由相同的人或同一部门,无论其是贵族还是人民,行使这三种权力,制定法律、执行公共决定、审判个体间的诉讼案件,那就一切均完蛋”。[5]
   
   英国大法官布莱克斯通()得出了与孟德斯鸠相同的结论。他说:“在制定法律和实施法律皆授予同一人或同一部门的任何地方,皆不会有共公自由。既然拥有作为法官的合格处置权,同时拥有作为立法者认为对他自由合适的所有权力,法官就可能制定暴虐的法律并以暴虐的方法执行之。”[6]
   
   18世纪英国思想家Otto Baehr指出:“在君主拥有无限立法权的国家,司法独立没有真实的意义,因为君主随时可以制定其认为合适的特殊规范来处理任何个案”。
   
   美国第二任总统亚当斯写道:“我的政治信条的基本原则是:专制独裁或无限主权或绝对权力,无论在一个多数的大众议会,还是在一个贵族理事会,或是在一个寡头执政团及一个皇帝中都是一样的。等同于专横、残暴、 血腥及在每个方面的恶毒。”[7]他最早(1780年)将三权分立原则纳入马萨诸色州宪法,并将分权制衡原则与法治相结合。“本政府立法部门永远不得行使属于行政和司法的权力;行政部门永远不得行使属于立法和司法部门的权力;司法部门永远不得行使立法和行政部门的权力。最终依法律而非依人管理”。1789年美国宪法几乎全文采纳了亚当斯草拟的分权制衡条款,从而在人类历史上确立了第一个严格按三权分立分权制衡原则治理国家的政府。
   
   宪法采纳的分权原则,并非为了促进高效行政,而是为了预防权力的滥用,防止暴政的产生,进而旨在保护人民免受专制暴政的欺凌。将所有的权力:立法,行政司法权集中在同一人手中,意味着宣布暴政来临。全世界所有的共产党国家均党国一体,三权不分,共产党打着工人农民士兵和人民的旗号,实则行共产党独裁专制极权勾当,因此全部必然演变成超级暴政;中共政权按英国牛津大学政治学教授罗伯特的说法最初实质上是 “农民共产主义”,如今则是“资本主义共产主义”。[8] 南郭以为中共政权纯属“极权专制流氓吸血鬼特权共产主义”,因此,在中共极权暴政下,自由、人权、法治、宪政、民主、共和、平等、公正、公平、公道、公义、正义,一切均已完蛋!。
   
   [1] Aristotle, Politics, translated by Benjamin Jowett and S.H.Butcher, the Heritage Press(New York,1964) In every State there are three divisions: the general assembly deliberating upon public affair, a body of magistrates, and a judiciary.
   
   [2]
   
   [3] Cicero’s De Re Publica, Lib.II.(Fragmenta)
   
   [4] See Adams’ Def. of the American Const., p.365. and Story’s Commen. Faries on the Const. sec.520 , n.3.
   
   [5] Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, Livre xi. Chapitre vi. “De la Constitution d’ Angleterre”.
   
   [6] Blackstone, Commentaries, vol.i.p.146.
   
   [7] In 1815, John Adams wrote: "The fundamental article of my political creed is that despotism, or unlimited sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in a majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratical council, an oligarchical junto, and a single emperor." Equally arbitrary, cruel, bloody and in every respect diabolical.
   
   [8] Robert Service, Comrades: A World History of Communism, (Macmillan 2007) p.437: China’s Capitalist communism.
   
   
   
   Separation of Powers Doctrine Historical Sources
   
   By Albert Conway[1]
   
   
   
   
   
    IT is a great pleasure to be here with you distinguished gentlemen representing the States of our Union as Chief Justices. It is an honor to have been asked by our President, Chief Justice Duckworth of Georgia, to be one of the speakers today. The portion of the subject to be discussed which has been assigned to me is The Historical Sources of the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers. I have not discussed States' Rights as it seems to me to be outside the subject to be presented. This subject is as important today as it was at any time in recorded history. Man's solution of fundamental problems of government affecting both the rule and the ruled has resulted in practice in the doctrine of checks and balances or of a mixed constitution or, as I shall refer to it, of the separation of the powers of government.
   
   
   
    This was worked out in ancient days in a manner attributed to the wisdom of Lycurgus for Sparta, as to other empires or nations, as a result of experience through trial and error, and again, as in our nation, by definite plan embodied in a written constitution.
   
   
   
    Philosophers have written upon our subject down through the ages. In the brief time I now have, I can do little more than mention four by name. Plato in his Laws, Book III, makes what is probably his first written reference to the subject. In that book he refers to the agreement among the three States of Argos, Messene and Lacedaemon (Sparta) and writes, "each of the three royal houses, and the cities under their sway, swore to one another, according to the laws, binding alike on ruler and subject, which they had made,--the rulers, that as time went on and the nation advanced, they would refrain from making their rule more severe; the subjects, that so long as the rulers kept fast to their promise, they would never upset the monarchy themselves, nor would they allow others to do so; and they swore that the Kings should aid both kings and peoples when wronged, and the peoples aid both peoples and kings."
   
   
   
    Polybius, who was born at Megalopolis about 208 B.C., thought that the best constitution was a combination of kingship, aristocracy and democracy and that Lycurgus had drawn up such a constitution for Sparta on that principle by a process of reasoning "untaught by adversity," while the Romans had arrived at the same final result "by the discipline of many struggles and troubles," "For," said he as to Rome, "if one fixed one's eyes on the power of the consuls, the constitution seemed completely monarchical and royal; if on that of the senate, it seemed again to be aristocratic; and when one looked at the power of the masses, it seemed clearly to be a democracy."[2] Polybius' relief in a mixed constitution affected those who drafted our federal constitution, and they also determined that liberty of the individual came through government limited by checks and balances and separation of powers.

[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