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
***(39)法治研究
·法治论/郭国汀
·自然法原理
·法律的定义
·法律的本质与精神
·什么是法治?
·法治的基本原则
·法治的目的
·法治与民主的前提与条件
·法治的起源与历史
·开明专制与法治--极权流氓暴政下决无法治生存的余地
·法治的基石和实质
·法治的精神
·法治余论
·一篇值得推介的法治论文杰作/郭国汀
·Judicial Independence and Canadian Judges
***(37)自由研究
***表达自由新闻与出版自由
·当代自由主义的基本特征
·只有新闻自由能治官员腐败之顽症
·郭国汀 唯有思想言论舆论新闻出版结社教育讲学演讲的真正自由才能救中国!
·中国争人权、言论表达自由权的先驱者与英雄名录
·中国政治言论自由的真实现状-我的亲身经历(英文)
·郭国汀论政治言论自由:限制与煽动罪(英文)
·郭国汀论出版自由——声援支持《民间》及主编翟明磊
·郭国汀 美國言論自由发展簡史 [1]
·美国的学述自由:Academic Freedom in the USA
·祝愿祖国早日实现真正的自由!新年祝福
·向中国良知记者致敬!
·丹麥主流社會召開中國言論自由研討會
·中共倒行逆施,严控国际媒体报导中国新闻
·关于思想自由与中律网友的对话 /南郭
·性、言论自由、自由战士
·性、言论自由,自由战士与中律网友们的讨论/南郭
·自由之我见
·不自由勿宁死!
·自由万岁!----我为“新青年学会四君子”及“不锈钢老鼠”辩护
·真正的民主自由政体是中国唯一的选择
·自由万岁!新年好!
·三论思想自由
·为自由而战,为正义事业献身,死得其所无尚光荣
·言论自由受到了严重威胁
·思想自由的哲学基础/郭国汀
·冲破精神思想的牢狱--自由要义/郭国汀
·我们为什么要争言论自由权?/南郭
***(38)思想自由与宗教信仰自由
·郭国汀论宗教信仰
·神学与哲学的异同
·宗教的思索
·爱因斯坦信犹太教和贵格教也信上帝
·信神是愚昧吗?!基督教义反人性吗?!谁在大规模屠杀婴儿?!
·爱因斯坦宗教信仰上帝相关言论选译
·爱因斯坦宗教上帝相关言论第二集
· 爱因斯坦原信的准确译法
·大哲大师大思想家大政治家论宗教上帝
·哲学家的前提与基础
·宗教是统治阶级麻醉人民的鸦片吗?
·为什么说爱才是宇宙的本质?
·宗教起源的根源何在?
·圣父圣子圣灵三位一体论的由来
·人民圣殿教真相
·质疑东海一枭良知大法兼驳良知宇宙本体论
·自然科学与宗教哲学灵魂
·读东海兄批判美国神话有感
·郭国汀为上帝信仰辩护
·驳东海之糊涂上帝观
·四海之内皆兄弟人类本是一家人
·推荐陈尔晋先生之《圣灵福音》
·质疑东海君之《良知大法》
·祝愿祖国早日实现真正的自由!
·关于司法公正的讨论郭国汀律师在北大法律信息网上发表了非常危险的错误观点应该予以驳斥!
·中共当局封杀言论为那般?
·六四的记忆
·谈中华文化与道德重建(四)
·中国百年最伟大的文字!
·郭国汀:为刘荻女英雄辩护吾当仁不让!
·只有思想言论出版新闻舆论的真正自由能够救中国!
·只有说真话的民族才有前途
·一个能思想的人才是力量无边的人/南郭
·思想之可贵在于其独立性
·独立思想是最美的
·思想的高度统一是人类社会之大敌
·统一思想之谬误由来已久矣/南郭
·我的心里话--有感于杜导斌先生被捕
***中共专制暴政政治迫害郭国汀律师实录
·郭国汀律师遭遇黑色元宵节
·中共对我的八次政治迫害--在温哥华告别恐惧讨共诉苦座谈会上的发言(上)
·中共暴政对我的八次政治迫害(中)
·中共暴政对我的八次政治迫害(下)
·If You Really Want Control Lock up Their Lawyers
·Anti-communist sentiments landed Chinese lawyer in an asylum
·我的思想认识与保证/郭国汀
·郭国汀律师的[悔罪][悔过]与[乞求]
·郭国汀因言论“违宪”行政处罚听证案代理词
·我推崇的浦志强大律师/郭国汀
·我被中共当局非法剥夺执业资格的真实原因
***(24)《共产主义黑皮书》郭国汀编译
·共产党皆变成杀人犯罪团伙的历史与理论分析
·朝鲜的罪恶与恐怖和秘密:共产党暴政罪恶批判系列之一
·古巴共产极权政权的罪恶:共产党暴政罪恶批判之二
·越南共产党暴政罪恶昭彰:共产党极权暴政罪恶实录之三
[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