大家
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[大家]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[The Bill of Rights]
郭国汀律师专栏
·《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
·江泽民和胡锦涛均极可能是货真价实的特大汉奸卖国贼!
·中共专制暴政与生态环境
·中共专制暴政正在毁灭中国生态环境
·郭国汀论中共专制暴政与酷刑(上)
·论中共专制暴政与酷刑(中)
·郭国汀论中共专制暴政与酷刑(下)
·郭国汀评论:胡锦涛不是在执政而是在犯罪
·彻底推翻极权专制流氓暴政!永志不忘六四屠城滔天罪孽!
·朱镕基犯有贪污盗窃罪吗?
·朱镕基有关劳动保险金的罪责是非之我见
·中共党员是罪犯!——评贺卫方教授的中共分成两派说
·中共党员是罪犯 无耻无行文人是重罪犯!
·不是中国政府而是中共暴政丧尽天良!不但温家宝而且胡锦涛皆乃政治精神重症患者!
·中国共产党早已病入膏肓无可救药!
·杜绝三鹿毒奶粉事件的三项原则
·郭国汀律师系统批判中共极权专制暴政论文目录
·郭国汀中共政权已经彻底流氓化
·中共是极端残暴下流无耻的流氓暴政 郭国汀
·怀念当代中国最高贵的人——杨天水/张林
·关于中共政权合法性及专制暴政与人种信仰关系的论战 郭国汀
·南郭/推翻颠覆中共流氓暴政有功无罪!
·面对中共流氓暴政全体中国人应当做什么?
·面对十八层地狱,我的真情告白
·我的退党(社)、团、队声明
·从中共控制媒体看中共政权的脆弱
·关于加国公民起诉江泽民罗干李清王茂林案的宣誓证词(英文)
·中共极力扶持缅甸军事专制政府及苏丹专制暴政
·请胡锦涛立即停止疯狂攻击郭国汀律师的电脑
·中共专制暴政恶贯满盈
·申曦(曾节明):剥胡锦涛的画皮
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights
   Author unknow
   南郭点评:争信仰自由权是第一批英国人来到美国的主要原因,而争代表权与自治权则是美国独立战争的主要动因,争全体公民的自由权则是美国内战的主要原因. 美国1798年颁布实施的Alien and Sedition Act, 规定:用错误、令人反感及恶意(的方式)描述政府构成犯罪即所谓诽谤政府罪。但宪法之父迈迪逊和杰弗逊均强烈反对该法。最后该法于1801年杰弗逊任总统后即被废除,因违反该法被拘禁的十几名违法者则全部无罪释放。依美国现行刑法则煽动暴力推翻合法政府只有在符合明显而即刻的危险”准则的情况下才可能构成犯罪,因此除非诽谤政府的煽动言论己经濒暴力边缘,而且危机迫在眉睫,否则应尽可能充分地保障这类言论的自由。亦即煽动非暴力方式推翻合法政府无罪!而中国刑法第105条第2款规定以造谣、诽谤或者其他方式煽动颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度的,构成煽动颠覆国家政权罪。亦即按照中共恶法,那怕煽动和平方式改变政府及所谓社会主义制度,均构成煽动颠覆国家政权罪!据此以观中国现行相关法律比美国至少落后了两百年!希特勒时代的德国法律规定:污蔑元首者得处两周以内的拘禁。而毛泽东时代则凡是公开喊出打倒毛泽东者甚至仅是在私人日记或书信中对毛不敬者即可能被枪决!而邓江胡时代以和平言论治重罪者成千上万!因此,中共是比法西斯残暴百倍甚至千倍的专制暴政!
   The Bill of Rights is the common name for Amendments 1 through 9 (the 10th Amendment is usually included under the heading of "Bill of Rights," since it was ratified with the other nine, but it does not technically recognize any rights).
   
   Americans have been concerned with their rights for hundreds of years. The right to practice religion however they wished was one of the primary reasons the first settlers came to America from England. The right of representation and self-determination was one of the primary reasons the Revolutionary War was fought. The right for all persons to be free was one of the reasons the Civil War was fought. American history is replete with bills of rights, from the most famous included in our Constitution, to the Declaration of Rights prompted by the Stamp Act to the Virginia Declaration of Rights written by George Mason for his state. Even today we speak of the apparently elusive Patient's Bill of Rights.
   What is interesting to note is that when the Constitutional Convention finished its work, it did not find it necessary to include a bill of rights in the final version. Several members, notably George Mason, were very disappointed by this decision and refused to sign the document over the issue. The argument was that the Constitution did not give the new federal government the ability to restrict inherent rights, so no list of those rights was necessary. Others worried that if the rights were listed, they would invariably forget some and the list would ever be incomplete. Finally, the argument was that the states each had their own constitutions, too, and that rights were best protected at a state level.
   Of all the issues that the Anti-Federalists gave for rejecting the new constitution, the lack of a bill of rights was the most compelling for many people. In the ratifying documents of five states, requests or demands for a bill of rights were included in the text, along with suggested lists (see the ratifying documents of Massachusetts, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York. Rhode Island also included a list, but they ratified the Constitution after the first Congress approved the Bill of Rights).
   The Federalists were opposed to adding a bill of rights, expounding on the reasons why in Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 84. Among the reasons listed was a list of the personal protections the new constitution did contain, such as the prohibition of ex post facto laws, the inviolate habeas corpus, and the restrictions on a conviction of treason. Federalist 85 addressed the subject, too, noting that amendment is always a possibility after ratification. It turns out, once the process of ratification was complete, that this was exactly the route taken.
   The first Congress under the Constitution had a lot to accomplish. It had many new powers not available to the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, and every state had interests it wanted to protect. James Madison, seen by many as the father of the Constitution, had won a seat in the House of Representatives, running partly on a platform that included a fight for a bill of rights. This may seem odd since Madison was one of those who advocated the omission of such a list of rights, but he eventually became convinced of the necessity.
   Madison tried to get the debate moving, but debate on tariffs and other pressing issues always pushed the debate on a bill of rights to the back burner. Madison finally had enough and on June 8, 1789, he presented his draft of a bill of rights to get the discussion moving.
   From June to September, both houses of Congress debated Madison's list, along with the lists presented by the states. Rights were enumerated, removed, modified, tweaked. Eventually, both houses agreed on twelve articles of amendment and sent them to the states. Two years later, in 1791, the last ten of these original twelve were ratified by the states and they became a part of the Constitution. By custom, the amendments were added to the end of the original document, rather than inserted in the text, as Madison had envisioned. All ten of the original amendments are referred to as The Bill of Rights, though only the first nine pertain to the people (Amendment 10 pertains to the states, though it mentions the people in parallel).
   
   Bar to Federal Action
   The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is, however, quite in line with what the Constitution was originally designed to be: a framework for the federal government. In other words, though the federal government was banned from violating the freedom of the press, states were free to regulate the press. For the most part, this was not an issue, because the state constitutions all had bills of rights, and many of the rights protected by the states mirrored those in the federal Bill, and many went further than the federal Bill.
   This point is best illustrated by one of the amendments that Madison proposed in his initial speech:
   Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:
   No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
   The Senate in its final draft of the Bill rejected this clause, seemingly innocuous to us today,, and the concept that any part of the Bill of Rights would apply to the states was still 100 years away. Several cases that came before the Supreme Court in the 19th century attempted to have the Court establish that the Bill should apply to the states, to no avail:
   In Barron v. Baltimore (32 U.S. 243 [1833]), the Court ruled that the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment did not apply to the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland by extension. Succinctly, the Court wrote: "...the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states."
   In Pervear v. Massachusetts (72 U.S. 475 [1866]), the Court was asked to rule on fines imposed upon a liquor dealer by the state. Pervear was licensed by the United States under the current internal revenue code to keep and sell liquor. He was fined and sentenced to three months of hard labor for not maintaining a state license for his liquor business. Part to the defense attempted to invoke the 8th Amendment's Excessive Fines and Cruel and Unusual Punishment clauses. The Court, again quite succinctly, said: "Of this proposition it is enough to say that the article of the Constitution relied upon in support of it does not apply to State but to National legislation."
   As to the Bill of Rights being a bar to federal acts, the Bill took some knocks in the first years of the new nation. The 1798 Alien and Sedition Act, for example, made nationals of countries the United States was at war with subject to summary arrest, and also made "false, scandalous and malicious" writings about the government a crime, with the burden of proof placed squarely on the shoulders of the defendant rather than the state. Madison and Thomas Jefferson were both adamantly opposed to the Act, and said that being unconstitutional, states were free to ignore (or nullify) the law. The Act, repealed in 1801, was never ruled unconstitutional.

[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