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
·汝竟敢骂共党骂毛泽东!
***(36)中共司法体制批判
·从人权律师的遭遇析中国人权的实际情况
·郭律师评价中国律师诉讼及司法体制现状
·中共专制暴政下为什么冤假错案堆积如山?
·中共勞教制度是人類歷史上最野蠻的制度
·马亚莲案与废除劳教制度
·郭國汀談中共勞教制度下的性酷刑
·郭國汀談萬名公民提出廢除勞教制度建立叻ㄐ袨槌C治法
·郭国汀:违宪、违法
·郭国汀律师谈中国司法现状
·郭国汀称司法黑社会化免死承诺难保赖昌星的命
·为赖昌星遗返案我的宣誓证词
·中华全国律师协会的实质----被阉割与自宫
·郭国汀 司法公正的前提条件
***中共专制暴政是国人一切深重苦难的总根源
·人权律师郭国汀称中共制造法拉盛事件旨在嫁祸抹黑法轮功以转移公众视线
·郭国汀 纽约时报报导死难学生亲属周月悼念地震中无辜牺牲的亲人
·美国顶级地震专家称四川地震有可能未能被预测到
·谁之罪?
·中共专制暴政的罪孽学校跨塌致数千名学生死灭最新统计
·一篇被全球英文博客转载最多的四川地震实况报导
·郭国汀百无一用是中国律师
·我愿意收养一个为救人而牺牲的教师或母亲的遗孤
·中国人持继追问为何众多学校震成碎片废墟? 被全球英文网站转载最多的地震专文
***美国2008年总统大选南郭点评系列
·朗保罗--美国2008年大选最雄劲的黑马
·美国大选最新民意进展分析——美国2008年总统大选南郭点评系列之二
·美国2008年大选程序正义与演讲精华
·欧巴马的通往白宫之旅
·前国务卿鮑威尔支持欧巴马
·麦肯总统候选人的基本政策主张
***(42)中国民主运动研究
· 自由宪政民主运动与中共暴政的决战主战场何在?
·国人应当认清中共政权的极权专制流氓犯罪本质
·真正觉醒后英勇的你我他才是决定中国前途和命运的基本力量
·是谁制造了大陆中国的“暴戾之气的泛滥”?
·我为何对中共极权暴政及胡锦涛没有仇恨维有鄙视?
·是共特黑而非民运黑
·我所了解的政治新星曾节明
· 南郭点评陈子明社会运动与政治演练
· 序《我的两个中国 --一个六四天安门学生反革命的实录》
·时代的最强音:“六四”屠城二十一周年口号
· 警惕共匪假冒民运人士故意毁损民运声誉—答人民思想家
·论颠覆国家政权罪的律师辩护
·郭律师点评杨建立博士论三个中国
·退出自由中国论坛的公开声明
·陈尔晋与张国堂之争的性质
·我的几个基本观点答张国堂先生公开信
·中国民运战略研究
·中国民运当前面临问题与对策研究
·郭国汀加入民主中国阵线的公开声明
·论公推中国民运政治领袖的必要性
·论公推自荐公选民运政治精神领袖的紧迫性
·中国民主运动领袖论?答方文武先生
·关于筹建过渡政府与公选民运领袖问题的讨论
·关于民运领袖过渡政府与程序正义的争论
·历史功臣还是历史罪人?
·中国民主运动到底需要什么样的政治精神领袖?
·谁是中国民主运动政治精神领袖的最佳人选?
·谁是中共极权专制暴政最害怕的劲敌?
·郭国汀:汪兆钧信是中共内部爆炸的一颗原子弹
·严正责令胡锦涛及中共当局——立即无条件释放民运志士李国涛!
·反抗中共专制暴政的先驱者与英雄(修正)
·相会伟大的刘文辉烈士英魂
·敬请胡锦涛先生立即制止下属恶意疯狂攻击南郭之电脑
·"六四领袖去死吧!"及 " 逢共必反、逢华必反"?!
·草根吾友欲往何处去?
·真实的陈泱潮故事
·陈泱潮自传之二
·强烈推荐国人必读之最佳政论文
·答小溪先生质疑
·驳斥草虾兼与草根商榷!
·伟大的中国文化复兴宣言 郭国汀
·关于宣讲人权公约基金申请推荐函
·必须立即终止反动透顶的行政官员任命制
·自由中国论坛的不锈钢老鼠到底是什么角色?
·关注李宇宙的命运
***(43)中国民主运动的思想、理论与实践
·中国争人权言论表达自由权的先驱者与英雄名录
·民主革命论 陈泱潮
·《特权论的》精髓——对共产专制特权制度的深刻致命批判
·特权论的精髓——对共产专制特权制度的深刻致命批判 郭国汀
·枭雄黑道乱世的一百年!郭国汀
·论无产阶级民主制度下的两党制
·陈泱潮评胡锦涛
·陈泱潮论江泽民
·我为什么特别推崇陈泱潮先生的思想理论?
·天才论/郭国汀
·彻底揭露批判中共极权专制流氓暴政本质的奇书
·极权专制暴政的根源/郭国汀
·共产极权专制暴政的典型特征——简评陈泱潮的《特权论》
[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