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]->[Beyond the Constitution]
郭国汀律师专栏
·论提单适用法律条款与首要条款
·无正本提单放货若干法律问题
·从1906年英国海上保险法起草者说开去
·集装箱保险合同争议举证责任规则
·“新世纪”轮船舶保险合同(固定物、浮动物? )争议案的反思
·船舶保险合同(保证条款)争议案析
·记名提单若干问题研究
·集装箱保险合同若干法律问题
·船舶保险合同“船舶出租”应指光船出租
·试论船舶保险合同项下“碰撞、触碰”的法律含义
·“新世纪”轮船舶保险合同(固定物、浮动物? )争议案的反思
·水上油污若干法律问题 郭国汀
·油污国际公约若干问题 郭国汀
·海上油污损害赔偿适用法律研究/郭国汀
·《郭国汀海商法论文自选》
·处理货抵目的港后收货人不提货的措施
·评一起重大涉外海商纠纷案的判决
·托运人对海运合同货损、货差没有针对承运人的诉权
·海上货运合同货差纠纷案析
·共同海损案法律分析
·货物被骗属于货物一切险承保范围
·上海吉龙塑胶制品有限公司诉上海捷士国际货运代理有限公司无单放货争议案
·GENERAL TRADE诉绍兴县进出口公司国际货物买卖合同品质纠纷案析
·货代违约造成贸易合同毁约应向谁索赔损失?
·对一起复杂行政诉讼案的法律思考
·2002年国际船舶保险条款
·Peter . Liu劳动争议初步法律意见/郭国汀
·船舶保险合同(保证条款)争议案析/郭国汀
·自有集装箱被占用案初步法律意见/郭国汀
·马士基集团香港有限公司与中国包装进出口安微公司签发放行提单再审争议案析/郭国汀
·析一起签发放行记名提单再审争议案/郭国汀
·上海亚太国际集装箱储运有限公司诉天津海峡货运有限公司上海分公司海上货物运输合同货物被盗损失代位追偿案析/郭国汀
·海上保险合同争议起诉状/郭国汀
·民事答辩反诉状
·关于应当如何理解《INSTITUTE CARGO CLAUSES (A)》中“一切险”责任范围的咨询复函/郭国汀
·海运运费及代理费问题的解答/郭国汀
·美亚保险公司上海分公司诉BDP亚洲太平洋有限公司海上货运合同货损争议代位追偿案析/郭国汀
·货代违约造成贸易合同无效怎么办?郭国汀
·捷运通有限公司诉东方集团上海市对外贸易有限公司海上货运合同争议案析/郭国汀
·平安保险公司代位追偿案析/郭国汀
·记名提单若干法律问题上海吉龙塑胶制品有限公司诉上海捷士国际货运代理有限公司无单放货争议案析/郭国汀
·乐清外贸公司与长荣航运公司海上货物运输合同争议案初步法律意见书/郭国汀
·新世纪轮船舶保险合同争议上诉代理词
·“富江7号”轮沉船保险合同争议案析/郭国汀
·上海吉龙塑胶制品有限公司诉上海捷士国际货运代理有限公司无单放货争议案析/郭国汀
·马士基集团香港有限公司与中国包装进出口安微公司签发放行提单再审争议案析/郭国汀
·评一起重大涉外海商纠纷案的判决 郭国汀
·请教郭国汀律师有关留置权问题
·新加坡捷富意运通有限公司诉上海中波国际贸易有限公司运费争议案析/郭国汀
·中国海关实际运作的宣誓证言/郭国汀
·亚洲的国际商事仲裁中心及其仲裁制度的特点-颜云青 郭国汀译
·亚洲的国际商事仲裁中心及其仲裁制度的特点-颜云青 郭国汀 译(下)
***郭国汀律师专译著
***(1)《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 郭国汀校
·寄语中国青少年——序《英国保险协会保险条款诠释》
·《英国保险协会保险条款诠释》译后记
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 第二编 海上货物保险格式
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 第三编 海上船舶格式保险单
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 第四编 对船东的附加保险
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 第五编 为各利益方的保险
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 第六编 战争和罢工险格式
***(2)英国协会保险货物保险条款英中对译
·1934年1月1日协会更换保险条款/郭国汀译
·1982年1月1日协会货物(A)条款/郭国汀译
·1982年1月1日协会货物保险(B)和(C)条款/郭国汀译
·1982年8月1日协会恶意损害保险条款/郭国汀译
·1983年9月5日协会商品贸易(A)(B)(C)保险条款/郭国汀译
·1984年1月1日协会黄麻保险条款/郭国汀译
·1986年1月1日协会冻肉保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶战争险和罢工险条款/郭国汀译
·1982年1月1日协会货物罢工险条款/郭国汀译
·1982年1月1日协会货物战争险保险条款/郭国汀译
·1982年10月1日协会煤炭保险条款/郭国汀译
·1983年10月1日和1995年11月1日协会船舶定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1984年1月1日协会天然橡胶(液态胶乳除外)保险条款/郭国汀译
·1986年1月1日协会冷冻食品(冻肉除外)保险A条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会运费定期战争和罢工险条款/郭国汀译
·1986年1月1日协会冷冻食品(冻肉除外)保险(C)条款/郭国汀译
·1983年2月1日协会散装油类保险条款/郭国汀译
·1983年12月1日协会盗窃、偷窃和提货不着保险条款(仅用于协会保险条款)/郭国汀译
·1986年1月1日国际肉类贸易协会冻肉展期保险条款(仅适用于协会冻肉保险(A)条款/郭国汀译
·1986年4月1日协会木材贸易联合会条款(与木材贸易联合会达成的协议)/郭国汀译
***(3)英国协会保险船舶条款英中对译
·1983年10月1日和1995年11月1日协会船舶定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1987年7月20日协会船舶港口险定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1988年6月1日协会造船厂的风险保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶乘客设备定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶航次保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶全损、共同海损和3/4碰撞责任航次保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶运费定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会机器损害附加免赔额保险条款/郭国汀译
·1985年11月1日协会游艇保险条款/郭国汀译
·1987年7月20日协会船壳定期保赔保险条款/郭国汀译
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Beyond the Constitution

Beyond the Constitution
   by James Leroy Wilson
   Mr. Wilson, in your latest article on LewRockwell.com you state that the 1787 constitution cannot be counted on to ensure liberty. Point taken! However, what should we then strive for? A return to the Articles of Confederation or an even more decentralized league of polities that looks more like the Holy Roman Empire than the EU? Personally, I'd say make Washington the equivalent for the lower 48 to what New York is to the UN members. What would you propose?
   Every nation, including the USA, is ruled by men, not by laws or constitutions. Liberty is protected by the people, to the extent that they desire liberty. And that is, ultimately, a cultural, rather than a merely political, question. The people of today will interpret the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean. But that is not to say that the Constitution has not itself profoundly influenced our culture. The institutions of authority into which we are born affect our worldviews. A lapsed (no longer following the practices of one’s religion)Catholic would see the world differently than a lapsed Lutheran, who would see it differently than a lapsed Moslem. A child raised with an abusive father would see things differently than a child raised with no father at all.
   Likewise, the laws of the land will influence our view of the world. As I wrote yesterday, the Constitution did not invent liberty, and will not protect it if the people want to give it up for something else. But I shouldn’t discount the Constitution too much. When the people seek to overturn injustice and the encroachments(intrude upon)of the State, they invoke the Constitution and especially its Bill of Rights, not an abstract ideal of liberty. The Constitution has been admired not just by Americans, but also by classical liberals and libertarians throughout the world. Indeed, it is hard to conceive of a libertarian movement without it.
   Although not a libertarian document, it provides the legal standard by which we oppose the Welfare State, the Police State, and Imperial Warfare State. So while the Constitution did not invent liberty, it has helped shape libertarian beliefs and values – our conception of liberty in and for America. Laws tend to do that, for good and for ill: they help shape our worldviews.
   What I don’t think we should do, however, is go "back" to a political tradition which respected the Constitution, for reasons stated yesterday. More than that, it is impossible. We go forward in time, not backward. The nature of the Republic and its people have changed. Phases in a life, or in a country, do not revolve. As time marches on, we enter new phases; we do not re-enter old ones. We will not go back to the beliefs and practices 1912, 1884, 1836, or 1776. Nor would we want to. Previous generations may have preserved the Constitution better, but they also preserved a lot of other beliefs and values we find reprehensible. To advocate "going back" to the Constitution is "politically incorrect" in its truest sense: it is unfeasible, counter-productive, and foolish. Many people think we still live under the Constitution and will wonder what we’re talking about anyway. Many others do not even care about the Constitution at all, or view it as an obstacle to their ideological agenda.
   The alternative is to move beyond the Constitution. This is what my correspondent asks. What would that look like? I don’t know, exactly, and no blueprint drawn up today will ever come to fruition(fulfillment of plans , aims, desired, results) exactly as planned anyway. But freedom is our value, our highest political end, and we ought not confuse means such as democracy, separation of powers, and federalism, with that end.
   The key is to preserve our best traditions and values as we move forward, to promote those things that once made us feel lucky and proud to be Americans: a commitment to peace and the avoidance of entangling(to cause to become twisted or mixed with something else) alliances and needless disputes with foreign nations; the preservation of our traditional civil liberties (speech, religion, self-defense, due process of law); democratic, decentralized(to move government from one central place to several different smaller ones), local government; free, unregulated trade within a large common market. These are desirable no matter the form of our political arrangements, and our political arrangements will be shaped by these values.
   To move "beyond" the Constitution means to frame debates in moral terms, not Constitutional legalese. For values shape culture, and culture shapes politics. Who should control the schools, parents or federal ’crats? Who should prescribe grandma’s pain medication, her doctor or the Attorney General? If a hurricane devastates a state, why is its National Guard thousands of miles away "liberating" strangers who despise our occupation? Why are our women fondled by federal security at airports?
   If the people, or the states, say, "Enough is enough!" then we will see change. We just don’t know what it will look like. It may mean dissolution of the Union and the creation of independent states and/or regional confederations. Or maybe the Union will stick together, with Constitutional balances restored. It doesn’t particularly matter to me.
   So you could say that I am striving for peace and freedom. If these become our nation’s values once again, then the politics will take care of itself.
   March 17, 2005
   James Leroy Wilson [send him mail] is a columnist for the Partial Observer and blogs at "Independent Country." He currently resides in eastern Washington State.
   Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com
   Thomasgguo note: this article describe the Constitution’s values and aims in the eyes of journalist, following comment really well worth consider more detail:
    “ Every nation is ruled by men, not by laws or constitutions. Liberty is protected by the people, to the extent that they desire liberty. And that is, ultimately, a cultural, rather than a merely political, question.” However, without freedom of express, speech, religion, the cultural will be destroied and damage the value finally; thus the fundament human right, must be the freedom.
    “the laws of the land will influence our view of the world. the Constitution did not invent liberty, and will not protect it if the people want to give it up for something else.” Rule of law or rule of man is quite different way, law is the standard rule which each member should be obey and accords when they wish have a peace and harmony life. The liberty was not born of nature, it is only realize by human being after years pain experience, and create and protect by Constitution.
   “while the Constitution did not invent liberty, it has helped shape libertarian beliefs and values – our conception of liberty in and for America.” Although the constitution did not invent the liberty itself, it is create through the men, it is clear that without constitution government without liberty.
   “But freedom is our value, our highest political end, and we ought not confuse means such as democracy, separation of powers, and federalism, with that end.” Freedom is topest aims of human being, the purpose of political should be protect and realize the freedom.
   The American’s main values “a commitment to peace and the avoidance of entangling(to cause to become twisted or mixed with something else) alliances and needless disputes with foreign nations; the preservation of our traditional civil liberties (speech, religion, self-defense, due process of law); democratic, decentralized(to move government from one central place to several different smaller ones), local government; free, unregulated trade within a large common market.” What are Chinese value?
   “To move "beyond" the Constitution means to frame debates in moral terms, not Constitutional legalese.”

[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