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
·中共极权专制暴政祸国殃民绝对乏善可陈
·郭律师评价中国律师诉讼及司法体制现状
***(40)宪政研究
·什么是宪政?
·什么是共和?
·宪政的实质
·分權制衡理論的历史淵源
·中国自由文化运动与宪政研究
·The Arguments For and Against the Notwithstanding Clause
·Freedom is not free but it is costly
·宪法改革的设想 南郭提要
·联邦共和民主宪政体制是美国经久强盛不衰的原因
·党化党控教育是中共祸国殃民的一大罪恶
·立宪时代的法政哲学思考提要
·有限政府与法治宪政
·联邦主义要旨
·It’s Not Patriotic to Violate the Constitution
·An Imperial Presidency Based on Constitutional Quicksand
·US Constitution revolution for real democracy
·One of the major writer whose legal thought Influence the Americas Founding Fathers
·Beyond the Constitution
·Philosophy Constitutionalism
·USA Constitution is in grave danger
·Constitutional Interpretation
·The Bill of Rights
***(41)民主研究
·美国宪政民主的基本要素
· 政治民主机制的最新发展--监督民主
· 序《民主导论》
·民主的真实含义
·自由宪政民主政治的七项实质要件
·民主的实质
·谁是真正的人类政治民主之父?
·民主就是[山头林立]?!
·共和比民主更为根本
·共和民主宪政要旨
·什么是联邦主义民主宪政?
·我的民主朝圣之旅
·民主的灯塔永放光茫
·古希腊雅典民主政体
·伯拉图亚里士多德论古希腊民主体制
·伯拉图论共产主义
***(39)法治研究
·法治论/郭国汀
·自然法原理
·法律的定义
·法律的本质与精神
·什么是法治?
·法治的基本原则
·法治的目的
·法治与民主的前提与条件
·法治的起源与历史
·开明专制与法治--极权流氓暴政下决无法治生存的余地
·法治的基石和实质
·法治的精神
·法治余论
·一篇值得推介的法治论文杰作/郭国汀
·Judicial Independence and Canadian Judges
***(37)自由研究
***表达自由新闻与出版自由
·当代自由主义的基本特征
·只有新闻自由能治官员腐败之顽症
·郭国汀 唯有思想言论舆论新闻出版结社教育讲学演讲的真正自由才能救中国!
·中国争人权、言论表达自由权的先驱者与英雄名录
·中国政治言论自由的真实现状-我的亲身经历(英文)
·郭国汀论政治言论自由:限制与煽动罪(英文)
·郭国汀论出版自由——声援支持《民间》及主编翟明磊
·郭国汀 美國言論自由发展簡史 [1]
·美国的学述自由:Academic Freedom in the USA
·祝愿祖国早日实现真正的自由!新年祝福
·向中国良知记者致敬!
·丹麥主流社會召開中國言論自由研討會
·中共倒行逆施,严控国际媒体报导中国新闻
·关于思想自由与中律网友的对话 /南郭
·性、言论自由、自由战士
·性、言论自由,自由战士与中律网友们的讨论/南郭
·自由之我见
·不自由勿宁死!
·自由万岁!----我为“新青年学会四君子”及“不锈钢老鼠”辩护
·真正的民主自由政体是中国唯一的选择
·自由万岁!新年好!
·三论思想自由
·为自由而战,为正义事业献身,死得其所无尚光荣
·言论自由受到了严重威胁
·思想自由的哲学基础/郭国汀
·冲破精神思想的牢狱--自由要义/郭国汀
·我们为什么要争言论自由权?/南郭
***(38)思想自由与宗教信仰自由
·郭国汀论宗教信仰
·神学与哲学的异同
·宗教的思索
·爱因斯坦信犹太教和贵格教也信上帝
·信神是愚昧吗?!基督教义反人性吗?!谁在大规模屠杀婴儿?!
·爱因斯坦宗教信仰上帝相关言论选译
·爱因斯坦宗教上帝相关言论第二集
· 爱因斯坦原信的准确译法
·大哲大师大思想家大政治家论宗教上帝
·哲学家的前提与基础
·宗教是统治阶级麻醉人民的鸦片吗?
·为什么说爱才是宇宙的本质?
·宗教起源的根源何在?
[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