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]->[什么是宪政?]
郭国汀律师专栏
·宣誓证词Affidavit
·中共一贯谎言连篇是个地道的骗子党!
·中共下达密文奥运成迫害最大借口
·中国著名人权律师从为法轮功辩护看中共践踏法律(图)
·郭国汀律师批评中共奧運前加劇迫害法輪功
·郭国汀律师呼吁台湾政府予吴亚林政治庇护
·郭国汀律师称中共持续非法迫害法轮功及其辩护律师
·答Gavin0919郭国汀是法轮功走狗之指控
***(3)郭国汀为法轮功辩护的专访
·专访郭国汀律师(上) :为法轮功辩护
·专访郭国汀律师(下) :回首不言悔
·RFA:郭国汀介绍为法轮功学员打官司的曲折经历
·自由亞洲電台专访郭國汀谈為法輪功學員打官司
·希望之声郭国汀专访:对法轮功学员的劳教、判刑是非法行为
***(三)郭国汀律师为郑恩宠抗辩
·我为郑恩宠律师抗辩的前前后后
·为郑恩宠案翟明磊等中国新闻记者六君子的声明
·敬请关注郑恩宠律师所谓"非法获取国家秘密罪"一案
·历史将证明郑恩宠律师无罪/郭国汀
·郑恩宠案二审辩护词及网友评论/郭国汀
·关于会见在押的郑恩宠的第二次申请函
·郑恩宠律师“为境外非法提供国家秘密罪”一审判决书
·上海市高级法院郑恩宠案刑事裁定书
·郑恩宠冤案再审案至全国律协诸位会长之公开函/郭国汀
·中国最需要像郑恩宠这样的律师
·诽谤郑恩宠律师的中共党奴及特务名录
·再谈郑恩宠案 郭国汀倡律师网上辩护
·我为郑恩宠辩护的前前后后 郭国汀
·上海普通市民感受的郑恩宠大律师
·关于郑恩宠案我的声明
·我为郑恩宠律师辩护
·一切源于郑恩宠案,可敬的国安兄弟请自重!
·郑恩宠聘请辩护人的真相
·郑恩宠聘请辩护律师真相之二
·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
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
什么是宪政?

什麽是憲政?
   
   
   
   郭国汀

   
   
   
   宪政正日益成为国人的热门话题,但何谓宪政?恐怕并非人人明白。简言之,宪政即宪法至上,分权制衡限制政府权力,充分保障国民基本人权的政治体制。
   
   宪政体制有如下要素:首先,政治社会建立在人民主权这一基本概念之上;其次,定期真实的多党自由竞选;再次,通过立法、行政、司法三权分立,分权制衡的安排限制政府的权力;第四,独立司法和确实的法治,以保障司法公正;最后,国家保障国民个人的公民权和政治权力,因为这是不可剥夺让与的基本人权。宪政体制是人类社会经数千年政治实践从野蛮走向文明总结发明创造出来的最佳政府形式。宪政学者哈贝马斯认为:“宪政并非语言、文化和民族的自然而然的产物,而是人类政治意志选择的产物”。[1]质言之,宪政是人类共同政治制度财产,人人皆用权享用之。
   
   美国宪法之父第四任总统迈迪逊指出了宪政的原因:“如果人都是天使,何需任何政府;如果由天使统治人,哪还需要对政府进行任何外部或内在的控制”。他论证道“既然人非天使,为了防抑人性的弱点,提升人性善良的一面,就必须对政府设置种种内在和外部的控制,只有给予各部门主管抵制其它部门的必要法定手段及鼓励个人的积极主动性,才有可能防止某些权力逐渐集中于同一部门的情况。‘野心必须用野心制约’,要迫使处于统治地位的人行使政治权力时,只能(不是自觉)作为公众利益的保护人,而无法实践粗暴、自私的个人意志”。[2]亦即宪政的基本假设乃是人性本恶,按基督教原理,人类皆有天生的原罪诸如:贪婪、自私、懒惰、好色,若不加限制约束或限制不力,人类难免被具有强酸性质的权力所腐蚀变质,因此,高明的政治家设计出能充分制约当权者预防其滥用权力的机制。
   
   人类对绝对权力似乎拥有永恒的爱好,无论君主,还是贵族寡头,或是纯民主政府概莫能外。“我即是国家!”法国路易十六世如是说;而1793年法国革命雅格滨设立的民主绝对权力也导致暴政;俄国布尔什维克党1917年十月革命,列宁创建了人类历史上第一个共产党极权暴政;中共1949年建立的则是党天下为特征的特权寡头独裁绝对权力,因而中共政权成为极权暴政是必然的。印证了阿克顿勋爵之"绝对权力导致绝对腐败“的政治学定律的真理性。因此,无论是个人或是少数人还是多数人的专制,都是对人民生命安全和幸福快乐人生的严重威胁,宪政的目标就在于防止政府的权力腐败,保障公民个体的基本权利,因而必须限制制约政府的权力。宪政就是政府必须按照由基本法(宪法)制定的制度和法律原则在最高法律授予的范围内行使权力,因此宪政即是专门研究如何有效限制制约政府权力的理论与实践。
   
   
   
   宪政与自由、法治、人权、独立司法、民主、共和密不可分。绝对权力的政府与宪政政府的主要区别在于前者对政府权力没有任何有效力量制约,既无独立司法,也没有自由媒体,当然不可能有法治,因而独裁当权者极易滥用权力随心所欲任意妄为,演变成专制暴政;后者则政府权力受到法治约束的分权制衡机制的调整,政府权力受到自由媒体和在野反对党及公众的全面监督制约;独立司法依法治原则裁断是非,维护公道,因而多能维护社会正义与公平,较充分保障国民基本人权,从而人民生活自由快乐幸福有实质保障。
   
   中共政权之所以反动腐败无能下流无耻残暴邪恶致极,其根本原因之一正在于中共政权是个不受任何外部力量有效限制制约的绝对独裁权力,因而其必然演变成绝对腐败与绝对残暴的暴政。为了全体国人切身根本长远利益,必须尽早抛弃推翻极端反动腐败无能残暴邪恶致极的中共极权专制流氓暴政!
   
   2009年3月28日
   
   [1] Habermas, a historical mistake has already been made. The democratic, constitutional state should not be seen as naturally determined by sharing language, culture, and national fate but as a result of a deliberate act of political will. Therefore, every citizen should have had the right to vote for or against the reunification
   
   [2] Edited by J.E.Cooke, The Federalist, Wesleyan University Press (Middletown Connecticut 1961)NO.51 James Madison PP.347-353. 迈迪逊《联邦党人文集》
   
   
   
   
   
   
   附:Constitutional Government
   
   John Cameron Simonds.
   
    Determined by the quality or character of its power, government may be generally
   
    classified as either absolute or constitutional. Benjamin Constant, a publicist of the Restoration, defined absolute power "as the absence of rule. of limit, of definition:" as the absence of all limitation to supreme power, and "of all independent powers to form a counterpoise." Wherever lodged, absolute power is the same, and admits of no rule or limit from without. Whether in form a monarchy or democracy, its underlying principle is: "power is the only foundation of the right to wield it."
   
    No ancient statesman, writes Dr. Lieber, "ever doubted the extent of supreme power. If the people possessed it, no one ever hesitated in allowing to them absolute power over every one and over everything. If it passed from the people to the few, or was usurped by one, in many cases they considered the acquisition of power unlawful, but never doubted its unlimited extent." To this conception, in ancient Greece, may be ascribed the death of Socrates, and the banishment of Aristides. For monarchical government, it was expressed by Justinian in the words: "Whatever pleases the prince has the force of law;" and by Louis XIV. in his famous aphorism: "I am the state." In France, the Jacobin convention of 1793 was a striking example of democratic absolutism; as a political organization, it assumed omnipotent power, and in its name perpetrated heinous crimes against liberty and right.
   
    The very opposite of this is constitutional government; for the reason, its powers are exercised in accordance with a " system of fundamental laws and principles." The legitimate powers of such a government are those only which accord with its primary organization, and are consistent with its limitations and definitions,
   
    A constitution usually supplements existing institutions, wherein it is grounded; it presupposes an established order of things; as an organon of government, the instrument presumes certain personal and property rights which it is intended to define, to protect and to preserve. A constitution is, therefore, efficient in the precise degree to which it restrains the exercise of power, wherever lodged or however distributed.
   
    Essentially, then, whatever form a government may assume, it is constitutional only when instituted rights are protected by restrictions and guarantees. In the words of Francis Lieber: "Civil liberty does not exist when any one, or any two, or any three, or any thousand, or any million, can do what they have the mere power to do. Arbitrary power does not become less arbitrary because it is the united power of many."
   
    Again, it is barely sufficient to define a Constitutional government as one having a "system of fundamental rules, principles and ordinances." Even an Asiatic despotism must respect the customs, traditions and opinions of its subjects. It would be difficult to find a government so absolute that it could wholly disregard that which had become customary and habitual in a people.
   
    Venice was once a constitutional aristocracy, as indeed were all the so-called republics of northern Italy. Great Britain presents the best example of what may be designated a constitutional monarchy. However, in each of the instances above mentioned, some department of the state was above or without the constitution; in the Venetian state it was the directory, once so despotic and sanguinary, while in England, parliament is politically omnipotent.
   
    This is not the American idea of a constitution. In the United States, absolute power does not exist in any department of the government, whether state or federal. In other words, with us, all government is the creature of a constitution, which is the only legitimate source and measure of its power; as all powers not granted by that instrument are "reserved," our system of government is an express limitation upon the powers of political agents, who may be properly re- strained only when their authority is strictly construed. Particularly is this true of the general government. A latitudinarian construction of delegated authority must eventuate in an emasculation of reserved rights; while the form may remain, the spirit will have departed. To quote the illustrious Marshall: "To what purpose are powers limited and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing if those limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited or unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."

[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