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]->[Philosophy Constitutionalism]
郭国汀律师专栏
***(五)涉外亿元合同诈骗案
·涉港“亿元”合同诈骗案之辩护词/郭国汀
·惊心动魄的辩护
·涉外亿元诈骗案致有关负责人的公开函
·致福建省委、省政府各位领导及福州市委、市府各位负责人的公开信
·关于本司与福州市粮油公司贸易纠纷案及因此而被无辜拘留、逮捕者至福州市、福建省、中国政府、公安、检察各部门负责人公开函:
·亿元合同诈骗案至福州市市长函
·亿元合同诈骗案至福州市委书记函
·关于亿元合同诈骗案至福州市委书记的函
·亿元合同诈骗案至中央政法委书记紧急呼吁函
·福州市公安局插手涉港经济纠纷造成海内外不良影响事
·亿元合同诈骗案郭国汀律师与龚雄副市长会谈备忘录
***(59)(五)郭国汀律师名案劲辩
***(1)政治良心案
·力虹(张建红)煽动颠覆国家政权案的咄咄怪事
·郭国汀力虹被中共无罪重判的真实原因
·评论严正责令胡锦涛立即无条件释放朱宇飙律师!
·简析严正学所谓颠覆国家政权案
·严正学所谓[涉嫌颠覆国家政权案]必须公开审判
·强烈谴责胡锦涛公然践踏法律任意拘禁人律师的恶劣行径
·东洲惨案发生的根源——呼吁由联合国组织调查团进行公正调查/郭国汀
·评吴爱中张惠刘兰(法轮功讲真相)案的两审判决
·郑恩宠律师“为境外非法提供国家秘密罪”辩护词
·律师关于郑恩宠案的二审辩护词
·郑恩宠非法为境外提供国家秘密罪刑事申诉状
·郭国汀:我为什么为清水君辩护
·作家张林又被刑事拘留!
·声援支持杨天水和张林
·杨天水是令人敬佩的民主战士
·辩护律师郭国汀获准会见杨天水
·坚决支持李国涛先生的义举,反对极权专制独裁政治!
·师涛是当代中国英雄——
·六四与师涛
·师涛为中国记者受难为自由民主坐牢
·郭国汀指雅虎遵守当地法律说无法律根据
·辩护律师郭国汀获准会见师涛
·长沙国安局无理拒绝辩护律师会见师涛
·答mironet质疑何谓真正的中国人权律师?
·向刘晓波,余杰先生学习,致敬!
·当一名律师无辜失去自由时——无题
***(2)民告官---行政诉讼案强制拆迁案
·国家赔偿行政诉讼案代理词
·政府欺诈何时休?!评一起政府参与非法强制拆迁案
·关于苏州市丽人服饰有限公司被非法强制拆迁案的法律分析意见
·苏州“历史文化街区”拆迁案代理词
·苏州市衣丽人服饰有限公司诉苏州市相城区建设局非法作出<房屋拆迁许可证>行政诉讼争议案
·关于苏州市丽人服饰有限公司被非法强制拆迁案的法律分析意见
·苏州市衣丽人服饰有限公司诉苏州市相城区建设局非法作出<房屋拆迁许可证>行政诉讼争议案代理词
·烟台「历史文化街区」拆迁案代理词
·社会公共利益与强制拆迁
·身残志坚受苦遭难的马亚莲二次劳教案:行政复议申请书/郭国汀
·马亚莲案代理词
·马亚莲因强迁上访两次劳教争议案行政上诉状
·上海黄浦区法院第三次变相密秘审判马亚莲二次劳教行政诉讼案/郭国汀
·苏州历史文化街区拆迁争议案上诉状
·苏州 “历史文化街区”拆迁争议上诉案代理词
·苏州“历史文化街区”拆迁案代理词
·敬请关注一起严重违法强制拆迁苏州相城区民营企业案
·非法强制拆迁民营企业争议案一审代理词/郭国汀
·一起非法强制拆迁争议案的法律意见书
·苏州市衣丽人服饰有限公司诉苏州市相城区建设局非法作出《房屋拆迁许可证》行政诉讼争议案代理词
·张锐诉上海市普陀区房屋土地管理局之行政诉讼案有关问题的初步法律意见
***(3)行政诉讼案
·征收船舶港务费行政争议案代理词
·行政处罚行政诉讼案上诉状
·谢安诉湖南省醴陵市工商行政管理局不当行政处罚案
·行政处罚行政诉讼案代理词
·对一起复杂行政诉讼案的法律思考
·虚假抵押行政侵权案代理词
·虚假抵押行政侵权上诉案代理词
·关于浦东公安分局扣押公司帐册及业务档案的法律意见书
·龙岩市恭发城市信用合作社诉龙岩市土地管理局国家行政赔偿争议案初步法律意见书
·虚假抵押行政侵权上诉状
·养老保险争议案初步法律意见
·赌博行政处罚争议案代理词
·征收船舶港务费行政争议案答辩状
·行政处罚(没收赌资)争议案再审申请书
·上海黄浦区法院第三次变相密秘审判马亚莲二次劳教行政诉讼案
***(4)重大涉外经贸争议案
·Ocean Glory 轮碰撞争议案代理词
·一起重大涉外提单侵权争议再审申请书
·评一起重大“委托贷款”纠纷案的两审判决
·一起重大信托存款合同争议再审申请书
·中外合资企业退股争议案代理词
·中外合资企业股权转让债务纠纷案代理词
·中外合资企业外方未出资争议案代理词
·无效中外合资企业合同争议案代理词
·台湾朝仁企业有限公司诉厦门龙立工业有限公司合资企业承包经营纠纷上诉案代理词
·海关行政处罚、行政侵权案代理词
·四百万美元外汇贷款担保合同争议上诉案
·中日合资企业解除合同争议案代理词
***(5)国际贸易名案要案
·重大国际货物买卖品质争议上诉案代理词
·国际货物买卖结算纠纷案代理词
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Philosophy Constitutionalism

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Constitutionalism
   Constitutionalism is the idea, often associated with the political theories of John Locke and the "founders" of the American republic, that government can and should be legally limited in its powers, and that its authority depends on its observing these limitations. This idea brings with it a host of vexing questions of interest not only to legal scholars, but to anyone keen to explore the legal and philosophical foundations of the state. How can a government be legally limited if law is the creation of government? Does this mean that a government can be "self-limiting," or is there some way of avoiding this implication? If meaningful limitation is to be possible, must constitutional constraints be somehow "entrenched"? Must they be enshrined in written rules? If so, how are they to be interpreted? In terms of literal meaning or the intentions of their authors, or in terms of the, possibly ever-changing, values they express? How one answers these questions depends crucially on how one conceives the nature, identity and authority of constitutions. Does a constitution establish a stable framework for the exercise of public power which is in some way fixed by factors like the original meaning or intentions? Or is it a "living tree" which grows and develops in tandem with changing political values and principles? These and other such questions are explored below.
   1. Constitutionalism: a Minimal and a Rich Sense
   2. Sovereign versus Government
   3. Entrenchment

   4. "Writtenness"
   5. Montesquieu and the Separation of Powers
   6. Constitutional Law versus Constitutional Convention
   7. Constitutional Interpretation and Constitutional Theories
   8. The Fixed View and the Living Tree
   9. Textualism: The Meaning of a Constitution’s Text
   10. Originalism
   11. Hypothetical Intent Theory
   12. Dworkin: Moral Theory
   13. Critical Theory
   Bibliography
   Other Internet Resources
   Related Entries
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   1. Constitutionalism: a Minimal and a Rich Sense
   In some minimal sense of the term, a "constitution" consists of a set of rules or norms creating, structuring and defining the limits of, government power or authority. Understood in this way, all states have constitutions and all states are constitutional states. Anything recognizable as a state must have some acknowledged means of constituting and specifying the limits (or lack thereof) placed upon the three basic forms of government power: legislative power (making new laws), executive power (implementing laws) and judicial power (adjudicating disputes under laws). Take the extreme case of an absolute monarch, Rex, who combines unlimited power in all three domains. If it is widely acknowledged that Rex has these powers, as well as the authority to exercise them at his pleasure, then the constitution of this state could be said to contain only one rule, which grants unlimited power to Rex. He is not legally answerable for the wisdom or morality of his decrees, nor is he bound by procedures, or any other kinds of limitations or requirements, in exercising his powers. Whatever he decrees is constitutionally valid.
   When scholars talk of constitutionalism, however, they normally mean something that rules out Rex’s case. They mean not only that there are rules creating legislative, executive and judicial powers, but that these rules impose limits on those powers.[1] Often these limitations are in the form of individual or group rights against government, rights to things like free expression, association, equality and due process of law. But constitutional limits come in a variety of forms. They can concern such things as the scope of authority (e.g. in a federal system, provincial or state governments may have authority over health care and education while the federal government’s jurisdiction extends to national defence and transportation); the mechanisms used in exercising the relevant power (e.g. procedural requirements governing the form and manner of legislation); and of course civil rights (e.g. in a Charter or Bill of Rights). Constitutionalism in this richer sense of the term is the idea that government can/should be limited in its powers and that its authority depends on its observing these limitations. In this richer sense of the term, there is no "constitution" in Rex’s society because the rules defining his authority impose no such limits. Compare a second state in which Regina has all the powers possessed by Rex except that she lacks authority to legislate on matters concerning religion. Suppose further that Regina also lacks authority to implement, or to adjudicate on the basis of, any law which exceeds the scope of her legislative competence. We have here the seeds of constitutionalism as that notion has come to be understood in Western legal thought.
   In discussing the history and nature of constitutionalism, a comparison is often drawn between Thomas Hobbes and John Locke who are thought to have defended, respectively, the notion of a constitutionally unlimited sovereign (e.g. Rex) versus that of a sovereign limited by the terms of a social contract containing substantive limitations on her authority (e.g. Regina).[2] But an equally good focal point is the English legal theorist John Austin who, like Hobbes, thought that the very notion of limited sovereignty is incoherent. For Austin, all law is the command of a sovereign, and so the notion that the sovereign could be limited by law requires a sovereign who is self-binding, who commands him/her/itself. But no one can "command" himself, except in some figurative sense, so the notion of limited sovereignty is, for Austin (and Hobbes), as incoherent as the idea of a square circle.[3] Though this feature of Austin’s theory has some plausibility when applied to the British Parliamentary system, where Parliament is often said to be "supreme" and constitutionally unlimited,[4] it faces serious difficulty when applied to most other constitutional democracies such as one finds in the United States and Germany, where it is clear that the powers of government are legally limited by a constitution. Austin’s answer was to say that sovereignty may lie with the people, or some other person or body whose authority is unlimited. Government bodies -- e.g. Parliament or the judiciary -- can be limited by constitutional law, but the sovereign -- i.e. "the people" -- remains unlimited. Whether this provides Austin with an adequate means of dealing with constitutional democracies is highly questionable. For Austin’s sovereign is a determinate individual or group of individuals whose commands to others constitute law. But if we identify the commanders with "the people", then we have the paradoxical result identified by H.L.A. Hart -- the commanders are commanding the commanders. In short, we lapse into incoherence.[5]
   2. Sovereign versus Government
   Though there are serious difficulties inherent in Austin’s attempt to make sense of "the people’s sovereignty," his account does bring out the need to distinguish between two different concepts: sovereignty and government. Roughly speaking, we might define "sovereignty" as the possession of supreme (and possibly unlimited) power and authority over some domain, and "government" as those persons or bodies through whom sovereignty is exercised. Once some such distinction is drawn, we see immediately that sovereignty might lie somewhere other than with the government. And once this implication is accepted, we can coherently go on to speak of limited government coupled with unlimited sovereignty. Arguably this is what one should say about constitutional democracies where the people’s sovereignty is thought to be unlimited but the government’s power is constitutionally limited. As Locke held, unlimited sovereignty remains with the people who have the normative power to void the authority of their government (or some part thereof) if it exceeds its constitutional limitations.
   Though sovereignty and government are different notions, it does seem possible for them to apply to the same individual or body. It is arguable that Hobbes insisted on the identification of sovereign and government insofar as he seemed to require a (virtually) complete transfer of all rights and powers from sovereign individuals to a political sovereign whose authority was to be absolute, thus rendering it possible to emerge from the wretched state of nature in which life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."[6] In Hobbes’ theory, supreme sovereignty must reside in the supreme governmental person or body who enjoys unlimited power and authority to rule the commonwealth. Anything less than unlimited government would, given human nature and the world we inhabit, destroy the very possibility of stable government. So even if "sovereignty" and "government" are different notions, this neither means nor implies that the two could not apply to one and the same individual(s).

[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