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]->[One of the major writer whose legal thought Influence the Americas Founding Fathers ]
郭国汀律师专栏
·真为这位北京律师脸红!
·张思之大律师冒着酷暑赴看守所会见郑恩宠
·上海监狱当局婉拒郑恩宠的辩护律师会见
·关于会见在押的郑恩宠的第二次申请函
·揭开“时代精英“画皮
·答时代精英,
·再答时代精英教导
·向张思之律师,郑恩宠律师学习,致敬!
·南郭:仗义执言的律师还是没良心的律师
·驳“文律”兄郑案高论/南郭
·中国最需要像郑恩宠这样的律师
·凡跟郭国汀贴者一律入选黑名单
·批驳李洪东之首恶律师说!
·历史岂容任意伪造!
·惊闻郑恩宠律师夫人蒋美丽被拘捕!
·郑恩宠案二审会维持原判,辩护律师难辞其咎。
·求名求利的律师代表
·答L君之三项基本原则
·郑恩宠案网友评论
·网友支持或反对郑恩宠的评论
·支持或反对郑恩宠的网友评论之二
·中国律师声援支持郑恩宠
·吴国策律师:“求名求利的律师代表——某律师的心里”系他人盗名发表的声明
·中国律师声援支持郑恩宠律师
·网警\网友\特务与郑恩宠案
·郑恩宠律师的最后一篇代理词
·关于记者杨金志、陈斌严重侵犯郑恩宠律师名誉权的律师函
·郭国汀律师如果你还是个真正的男人的话,请你勇于承担败诉的责任。
·郑恩宠案上海当局特务什么下流无耻的手段皆用
·谋害郑恩宠的凶手是谁?
·郑恩宠案上海高院驳回上诉后网友们的评论
·请记住一位伟大的律师英雄——郑恩宠/郭国汀
***(四)香港联中公司与厦门国际贸易信托投资公司国际贸易争议再审案
·司法腐败的典型案例
·最高法院无理拖宕九年拒不下判再审案代理词
·反了你!竟敢不尊敬我大法官!
·就十五载官司致最高法院法官的公开函
·中国法官如何让吾尊敬/南郭
·最高法院的院长们为何威胁郭国汀律师?
***(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
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
One of the major writer whose legal thought Influence the Americas Founding Fathers

   One of the major writer whose legal thought Influence the Americas Founding Fathers
   
   Author unknow
   Thomasgguo note
   

   We used to know only 17 to 18 century a group thought effect the America’s Founding Fathers, in fact, a 12 century British Justice, was the first major writers on the subject of English constitutional law and custom following Magna Carta was Henry Bracton.
   
   Bracton was born, lived and worked in Devon during the early 1200s (his birthdate unknown, he died in Exeter, in 1268). He was both a Cleric and a Justice - as indeed was common at that time, for few but the Clergy could read. From 1245 he was an Itinerant Justice for King Henry III, and from 1247 to 1257 was a Judge of the Coram Rege which later became the King's or Queen's Bench.
   
   His (Latin language) document On the Laws and Customs of England is one of the oldest systematic treatises on English Common Law. It also deals in depth with the obligations of, and disciplines upon Royal power, concentrating on three major themes: that the King should himself be subject to and act within the Law, that he should rule wisely and justly, and that he should rule in consultation with his peers(a member of any of five noble ranks, baron, viscount, earl, marquis and duke, who has the right to sit in the House of Lords), the "eminent men" of the land.
   
   The King must first of all be subject to, and act within the Law.
   
   In stressing the King's relationship with the law, Bracton identifies two aspects of law and the apparent contradiction between them. One aspect of law consists of orders and regulations, and in this sense the King is the source of law. The other aspect of law is the body of custom we would now call the Constitutional Framework; here the King must himself be subject to law, for the King and the very institution of Monarchy owe their existence to law in this Constitutional sense.
   
   So Bracton insists that "the King must be under God and under the Law, because the King's position owes its very existence to the wider framework of law.
   
   "Let him therefore in his Laws, observe the due process of law through which he himself exists. For the King is not fulfilling his legal obligations when he rules by personal will, rather than by due process of law under the ultimate will of God."
   
   Bracton also expects the King to obey his own laws, for the King, though the source of Law, is not outside the Law:
   
   "What the King is bound by virtue of his office to forbid to others, he ought not to do himself. Let him, therefore, temper his power by the due process of law, which is the discipline upon power, that he may live according to the Laws, for the Law of mankind has decreed that the lawgiver should be bound by his own Laws.
   
   "Nothing is more fitting for a Sovereign than to live by and within the laws, nor is there any greater sovereignty than to govern according to the due process of Law, and the Sovereign ought properly to yield to the tradition and process of Law that makes him King."
   
   Bracton strengthens his argument with this forceful reference to Christian example:
   
   "That the King must bow to the process and formality of law is parallelled in the example of Jesus Christ. Though many ways were open to Him to fulfil His destiny in the redemption(the action of redeeming or state of being redeemed; to buy or gain one’s freedom) of the Human race, He chose to destroy the devil's work, not through the arbitrary use of His great powers, but by subjecting Himself to the existing laws of justice. In this way He willed Himself to be under the law that He might redeem all those who must live under it. He chose to use not force, but judgement."
   
   Monarchs of England and Europe have often claimed to rule by Divine Right. The Kings themselves interpreted the concept of Divine Right as placing them above and beyond the reach - or reproach(blame;the expression of disapproval; disgrace) - of the law, and of those they ruled.
   
   Bracton however voices an earlier understanding of Rule by Divine Right, namely that the King is God's Minister, and as such is under obligation to rule wisely and responsibly:
   
   "The King is Vicar and Minister of God on Earth, and from God comes the power of justice. Therefore the King's power is that of justice, not injustice. The power of injustice is from the Devil, not from God.
   
   "The King will be the Minister of him whose work he performs. Therefore as long as he does justice he is the Vicar of the Eternal King, but he is the Devil's Minister when he deviates into injustice or injury.
   
   "The King is called King, not from reigning(to be the king or queen, without holding real power), but from ruling well, since he is a King as long as he rules well, but a tyrant when he oppresses by violent domination the people entrusted to his care."
   
   Bracton also stresses the requirement of participation in the formulation of laws:
   
   "The King should not propose or enact laws rashly by his own will or whim(a sudden idea or wish, often one that is not reasonable or sensible); the law should be properly decided with the counsel of his peers, the King giving it formal authority only after full joint deliberation(careful consideration; thorough examination of a matter) and consultation."
   
   Bracton thus set out the three major ideals of Constitutional Monarchy: that the King should himself be subject to and act within the Law, that he should rule wisely and justly, and that he should rule in consultation with his peers.
   
   The battle for consultation was won when Parliament gained supremacy(the state of being supreme) over the Monarch, and Britain became a Constitutional Monarchy.
   
   But now a new constitutional challenge would appear: the challenge of subjecting Parliament to constitutional discipline. Subsequent political development would attempt to ensure that, while Parliament would remain and grow as the institution of legislation and of popular representation, the power of Parliament itself should not become absolute, and Parliament should be subject to the same rules of underlying constitutional precedent which had previously been formulated to discipline Monarchs.
   
   This was the background from which America's Founding Fathers drew both fear and inspiration: fear of re-creating a new autocratic monarchy or presidency, and inspiration for the creation of a new kind of government, a government representing its people not dominating or oppressing them.
   
   Thomasgguo note: it is very clear that constitution is only the son of the idea of constitutionalism, thus the value and conception as well as the ideologies of constitution is vital important in constitutional government. Constitutional government is the only way to escape the autocracy and dictatorship regime

©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