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]->[法治的精神]
郭国汀律师专栏
·英雄伟人与超人/郭国汀
·中共党奴的“学术”
·我倒宁可相信李洪东仅仅是因为无知/南郭
·愿王洪民先生的在天之灵安息!/郭国汀
·堂堂正正做个真正的中国人!/南郭
·中国律师朋友们幸福不会从天降!/北郭
·令我感动的赞美!/南郭
·谢谢网友们关注天易律师事务所的命运
·公开论战化敌为友——新年致词/新南郭
·中国涉外案件没有一起获得执行 郭国汀
·宣战演讲名篇
·中共外逃贪官大多是政治斗争牺牲品问 采访郭国汀
·就宗教论坛封郭国汀笔名事致小溪的公开信
***(51)国际人权法律与实务
(A)***国际人权公约(中英文本)
·国际人权法律资料 世界人权宣言
·国际人权法律资料 公民权利和政治权利国际公约
·国际人权法律资料 法国人权与公民权宣言[人权宣言]
·国际人权法律资料 美国独立宣言
·国际人权法律资料 经济 、社会 、文化权利国际公约
·国际人权法律资料 保护人人不受酷刑和其他残刑和其他残忍不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚宣言
·禁止酷刑和其他残忍不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚公约
·联合国有关健康保健人员尤其是医护人员在保护和防止囚犯和被拘禁人员不受酷刑和其他残忍不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚的医疗伦理原则(1982)
·国际人权法律资料 囚犯待遇最低限度标准规则
·国际人权法律资料 国际刑事法院罗马规约
·消除基于宗教或信仰原因的一切形式的不容忍和歧视宣言
·联合国囚犯最低标准待遇规则
·联合国囚犯待遇基本原则(1990年)
·联合国保护所有被以任何形式拘禁或关押人员的主要原则(1988)
·结社自由和组织权利保护公约
·联合国反腐败公约
·联合国发展权利宣言
·促进和保护普遍公认的人权和基本自由的权利和义务宣言
·中国已签国际人权公约联合国人员和有关人权安全公约
·联合国律师职责的基本原则
·联合国司法独立的基本原则(1985年)
·联合国检察官的职责准则
·世界人权公约英文版Universal Declaration of Human Rights
·犯罪及权力滥用受害者恢复正义基本原则
·国际刑事法院规约(1998)
·国际刑事法庭(芦旺达)程序与证据规则(1995)
·国际刑事法庭(芦旺达)规约
·起诉严重侵犯国际人道法责任人的国际(前南斯拉夫)法庭规约(1991)
·消除一切形式歧视妇女的国际公约1981
·国际人权法律资料 取缔教育歧视公约
·关于就业及职业歧视的公约
·消除一切形式歧视妇女的国际公约选择性议定书2000
·联合国防止和惩罚种族灭绝罪的公约(1951)
·联合国有关难民身份的国际公约1954
·儿童权利国际公约1990
·起诉和惩罚欧洲轴心国主要战争罪犯的国际军事法庭协议(纽伦堡宪章)
***区域性国际人权法律文件
·1996年欧洲反破坏性异端决议及其邪教定义
·非洲人权和人民权利公约(1981)
·美洲人的权利与义务宣言(1948)
·美洲人权公约(1969)
·美洲防止和禁罚酷刑的公约
·防止酷刑和其他残忍不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚的欧洲公约1989
·欧洲保护人权和基本自由公约(1950)
·欧洲社会宪章1961
·建设新欧洲的巴黎宪章1990
(B)***美国人权法律文件
·美国1620年“五月花号”公约(The Mayflower Compact)
·美国1786年弗吉尼亚宗教自由法令
·美国1776年弗吉尼亚权利法案
·美国1862年解放黑奴宣言
·美国1777年邦联条款
·美国1776年维吉尼亚权利法案
(C)***英国人权法律文件
·英国1998年人权法案
·英国1676年人身保护令
·英国1689年权利法案
·英国1628年权利请愿书
·英国1215年自由大宪章
***(52)郭国汀论法官与律师
·悼念前最高法院大法官冯立奇教授逝世四周年
·法官律师与政党 郭国汀
·尊敬的法官大人你值得尊敬吗?!
·郭国汀与中国律师网友论法官
·法官的良心与良知/南郭
·法官!这是我法律生涯的终极目标! 郭国汀
·律师与法官之间究竟应如何摆正关系?
·从 “中国律师人”说开去
·唯有科班出身者才能当律师?!答王靓华高论/南郭
·律师的责任——再答李洪东/南郭
·中国律师朋友们幸福不会从天降!/南郭
·我为北京16位律师喝彩!郭国汀
·郭国汀律师与网上警官的交锋
·我是中国律师我怕谁?!
·郭国汀 好律师与称职的律师
·温柔抗议对郭律师的ID第二次查封
·第五次强烈抗议中国律师网无理非法封杀郭律师的IP
·中国律师网为何封杀中国律师?
·中律网封杀删除最受网友们欢迎的郭国汀律师
·最受欢迎的写手却被中共彻底封杀
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
法治的精神

法治的精神
   
   南郭点评:“美国革命”其实并非共产党主张的那种所谓革命,而是属于几无破坏性,富有建设性的社会政治经济制度的进化。法国思想家芦棱的著作在美国人几乎无人问津,美国独立战争期间对美国人影响最大的乃是Sidney, Harrington and Locke等人的著作。美国人实质上是在英国社会政治经济体制基础上,坚持法治反对专断与尊重个人权利,强调保障人权,不断进行政治改良进化发展而成为今日自由宪政民主国家。法治精神是对抗专制暴政的最有力的武器之一。
   
   

   
    Rule of law not revolution
   
   By Robert N. Wilkin [1]
   
   
   
   
   
    “ When we proclaim that we are revolutionaries and boast of our revolutionary spirit, the author states, we play into the hands of the communists and add to the confusion of their Marxian dialectic and "upside-down language". There is error and confusion in the word "revolution"; history, semantics, logic and clear thinking suggest the use of some other word to characterize our country's purpose today.”[2]
   
   
   
    THE BOLSHEVIK dictatorship is vigorously conducting a world revolution against all traditional forms of government and standards of politics, morality, religion and culture. When we proclaim that we are revolutionaries and boast of our revolutionary spirit we play into the hands of the Bolsheviks and add to the confusion of their Marxian dialectic and "upside- down language". Their revolution is wholly destructive and offers nothing to replace what they seek to destroy.What we are championing and defending is freedom under law, not dictatorship. The history and spirit of our institutions are constructive, not destructive.
   
   
   
    Newspapers reported that President Kennedy, before he left for his meeting with Soviet Premier Khrushchev, said: "I go to Vienna as the leader of the greatest revolutionary country on earth. Our knees do not tremble at the word 'revolution'. We believe in it." And William 0. Douglas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, wrote an article entitled. "The U. S. and the Revolutionary Spirit", published in Saturday Review, June 10, 1961, the first sentence of which was, "We Americans were born in revolution." The editorial statement at the beginning of the article said, "The United States has traditionally gloried in its revolutionary heritage."
   
   
   
    At once it must be clearly and emphatically stated that the President, the Justice and the editors were not intentionally favoring or supporting the communist revolution. The purpose of their statements was to convey our traditional sympathy for all oppressed peoples who struggle against tyranny and despotism. Loyal Americans would agree with the substance of their remarks. It is the purpose of this discussion merely to point out the error and confusion in the word "revolution". history, semantics, logic and clear thinking suggest the use of some term other than "revolution" to characterize our purpose today.
   
   
   
    War of Independence Was Not a Revolution
   
   
   
    Historians and political scientists of highest authority have explained repeatedly that our War for Independence was not a revolution but a continuance of the evolution of human rights that had been progressing for centuries in England. Historians have referred to England as a nation "marked by a sturdy sense of right". That sense of right and respect for law have marked the Anglo-Saxon race generally. It was owing to their inherited devotion to such principles that the American colonies separated themselves from the British Empire. The establishment of an independent nation in America was not a revolution in the Marxist sense, but a continued assertion of the convictions that had asserted themselves successfully in England. It is that same devotion to law against arbitrary will that continues to unite English-speaking people in the defense of human rights against the forms of absolutism which threaten them today.
   
   
   
    John Fiske, in The Critical Period of American History, in discussing the reforms of Colonial governments prior to the War of Independence, said, "except for expulsion of the royal and proprietary governors, the work had in no instance been revolutionary in its character". He said further:
   
   
   
    It was not so much that the American people gained an increase of freedom by their separation from England, as that they kept the freedom they had always enjoyed, that freedom which was the inalienable birthright of Englishmen, but which George III had foolishly sought to impair. The American Revolution was therefore in no respect destructive. It was the most conservative revolution known to history, thoroughly English in conception from beginning to end. It had no likeness whatever to the terrible popular convulsion which soon after took place in France. The mischievous doctrines of Rousseau had found few readers and fewer admirers among the Americans. The principles upon which their revolution was conducted were those of Sidney, Harrington and Locke. In remodelling the state governments, as in planning the union of the states, the precedents followed and the principles applied were almost purely English.
   
   
   
    The colonies, having been founded largely by men opposed to the imperious will of the King, continued their struggle for rights of Englishmen. The opposition in England to taxes imposed by the King became in America opposition to "taxation without representation". The sentiment in England against the despotic orders of the Star Chainher and High Commission was reasserted in the colonial Resolves "that all trials for any crime whatsoever should be within the Colony by known course of law". The arbitrary orders of the King in the colonies became an issue on both sides of the ocean. That the colonists were continuing the struggle for the supremacy of law is shown by the fact that they were championed on both sides of the Atlantic by the ablest lawyers. The rights of the colonists were defended in England by Sir Robert Walpole, Edmund Burke, William Pitt, Charles James Fox and others. In America the opposition was led by men who personified the spirit of the common law. They based their claims and arguments on the teachings of Coke, who had based his arguments against arbitrary usurpation of power on the teachings of Bracton. They insisted that the arbitrary acts of the Crown were against the Constitution of England and therefore void.
   
   
   
    Word "Revolution" Is Harmful to Us
   
   
   
    When the King sent his soldiers to enforce his orders, the colonists took up arms against them. Those who bear arms in defense of lawful order are not revolutionaries. It is true that the efforts of the colonies for independence became known generally as the American Revolution. Justice Douglas regrets that after World War II "we lost our pride in 'revolution' as an American concept". We should regret, however, that that word was ever accepted as an American concept. It was not so harmful formerly, but today it puts us in a class with the Marxists.
   
   
   
    The President, in connection with his statements quoted above, said, "We believe in the progress of mankind-we believe in freedom." That belief is sustained by "government not of men, but of law". Justice Douglas stated that Australia, New Zealand and North America, during this century, have not been interested in revolution for themselves, "because their institutions usually had built-in procedures for change". A felicitous phrase to distinguish rule of law from despotic rule!
   
   
   
    He stated also that under Gandhi "India experienced an awakening that generated more power than tanks and artillery". India gained its independence without a revolution, and India retained Anglo-American jurisprudence as the law of the land. Its courts cite the decisions of English and American courts as authority for their decisions.
   
   
   
    Justice Douglas concedes that "We, as democrats, cannot become subversive in the communist style and form undergrounds within each nation, undergrounds bent on overthrow by force and violence." We therefore should not identify and degrade our cause by use of the word "revolution". We should not glamorize a word which Marxism has distorted in world opinion.

[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