当前位置:首 页 >> 学术研究 >> 法学 >> 宗教视野下的美国宪法解释——评巴尔金的《活原旨主义》
学术研究
点击排行
最新文章
热门标签
哲学 影评 符号学 分析哲学
管理 经济危机 贫富差距
传播 新闻 和谐社会
历史 胡塞尔  人口比例
郎咸平 华民 林毅夫 价值观 
司法公正 国学 正义 人文 
存在主义 现象学 海德格尔
法学
宗教视野下的美国宪法解释——评巴尔金的《活原旨主义》
来源:网络转摘 作者:丁晓东 点击:793次 时间:2015-12-03 15:51:07

   *本文是在2012年耶鲁法学院春季“说服与政治”(Persuasion and Politics)的课程论文的基础上发展起来的,感谢耶鲁大学法学院的杰克?巴尔金(Jack Balkin)教授、保罗?卡恩(Paul Kahn)教授、耶鲁大学政治系的布莱恩?加斯藤(Bryan Garsten)教授和哈佛大学法学院的山姆?莫恩(Samuel Moyn)教授的帮助和指导。

   [1]The Federalist Papers, George W. Carey, James McClellan, eds.,Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, p.268,406(2001).

   [2]McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U. S.316(1819).

   [3]关于死人意志(dead hand)问题的讨论,参见Adam Samaha, Dead Hand Arguments and Constitutional Interpretation, 108 Colum.L.Rev.606(2008).

   [4]Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism, Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, p.20(2011).

   [5]Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism, Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, p.20(2011).

   [6]本书的中文版已经由厦门大学的刘连泰教授译出,参见杰克?巴尔金著,刘连泰译:《活的原旨主义》,厦门大学出版社2014年版。

   [7]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 6.

   [8]参见http://www.law.yale.edu/intellectuallife/constinterp12_agenda.htm.

   [9]Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, Duke Law Review等顶尖法律期刊都对此书进行了评论,而Boston University Law Review、The University of Illinois Law Review等期刊则更是组织了专题讨论。

   [10]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,p.21.

   [11]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,p.3.

   [12]美国宪法第1条第3款。

   [13]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,p.43.

   [14]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,p.13.

   [15]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,pp.138-182.

   [16]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,pp.183-219.

   [17]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,pp.220-255.

   [18]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,p.36.

   [19]John O. McGinnis & Michael Rappaport, Original Interpretive Principles as the Core of Originalism, 24 Constitutional Commentary 371(2007),p.372,380.

   [20]Antonin Scalia, Common Law Courts in a Civil Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws, in A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Amy Gutmann ed.,Princeton: Princeton University Press, p.40(1997).

   [21]Scott J. Shapiro, Legality, Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011.

   [22]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,p.20.

   [23]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,pp.60-61.

   [24]参见Jack Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World, Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011.

   [25]John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, W.Rumble (ed.),Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995,(first published, 1832).

   [26]Morton Horwitz, The Warren Court and the Pursuit of Justice, New York: Hill and Wang, 1998.

   [27]Vincent Blasi, The Burger Court: the counter-revolution that wasn’t (3rd ed.),New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.

   [28]Robert Post &Reva Siegel, The Right’s Living Constitution, 75 Fordahm L.Rev.545(2006).

   [29]William Rehnquist, The Notion of a Living Constitution, 54 Tex. L.Rev.693(1976).

   [30]Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977.

   [31]General Edwin Meese III, Address before the American Bar Association (July 9,1985),in The Great Debate: Interpreting Our Written Constitution 9,Paul G. Cassel ed.,Washington D. C. The Federalist Society, 1986.

   [32]Robert Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law, New York: The Free Press, 1990; A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Amy Gutmann ed.,Princeton: Princeton University Press, p.40(1997).

   [33]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/us/politics/07constitution.html.

   [34]Paul Brest, The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding, 60 B. U. L.Rev.204(1980).

   [35]参见H. Jefferson Powell, The Original Understanding of Original Intent, 98 Harv. L.Rev.885(1985),pp.887-888.

   [36]Antonin Scalia, Address Before the Attorney General’s Conference on Economic Liberties (June 14,1986),in Original Meaning Jurisprudence: A Sourcebook, Office of Legal Policy, (U. S. Department of Justice),p.101(1987); Office of Legal Policy, U. S. Department of Justice, Guidelines on Constitutional Litigation, (U. S. Department of Justice),pp.3-6(1988).

   [37]例如德沃金,Ronald Dworkin, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the Constitution, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp.291-292.

   [38]例如兰迪?博南特,Randy Barnett, An Originalist for Nonoriginalists, 45 Loy. L Rev.611(1999).

   [39]Caleb Nelson, Originalism and Interpretive Conventions, 70 U. Chi. L.Rev.519(2003)

   [40]Robert Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law, New York: The Free Press, 1990.

   [41]最近,个别保守派学者开始重新为新政之前的宪政实践辩护,但布朗案基本上已经盖棺定论,无人质疑。David E. Bernstein, Re-habilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.

   [42]因此,当今主流的保守派原旨主义可以说是“新政/布朗原旨主义(New Deal/Brown originalism)”Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,p.117.

   [43]A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Amy Gutmann ed.,Princeton, N. J.: Princeton. University Press, p.140(1997).

   [44]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,p.104.

   [45]David Strauss, The Living Constitution, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010.

   [46]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,p.299.

   [47]Andrew Koppelman, Why Jack Balkin Is Disgusting, 27 Const. Comment.177.(2010).

   [48]Matthew Franck, Jumping to Conclusions, National Review Online, Aug.18,2007.http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/51392/jumping-conclusions/matthew-j-franck.

   [49]参见Ronald Dworkin, Law’s Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986.

   [50]列文森教授显然是这一政治原则最强烈的反对者之一,参见Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It),New. York, Oxford University, 2006.

   [51]对于宪法和忠诚之间的关系,列文森教授有非常精彩的讨论,参见Sanford Levinson, Constitutional Faith, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.

   [52]The Federalist Papers, George W. Carey, James McClellan, eds.,Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, pp.319-324(2001).

   [53]Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S.393(1857).

   [54]这里我们似乎可以重新思考卡尔?施密特著名的断言,施密特曾指出:“例外比规则更加有趣:规则什么也证明不了,而例外证明了所有东西:例外不仅仅确认了规则,而且确认了规则的存在;规则的存在只能从例外中得出”。但如果以这里分析的角度,却可以发现例外和规则并非一对对立的概念:规则中隐藏着例外,而例外中也隐藏着规则。无论是遵循规则还是例外都取决于人的决断。参见Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans. George Schwab, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985,12

   [55]其创立的网站“巴尔金化(Balkinization)”一直是自由派法学在网络上的最大阵地。参见http://balkin.blogspot.com.

   [56]Jack Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World, Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011,chapter 7.

   [57]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,p.9.

   [58]这是列文森教授在2011年耶鲁法学院秋季宪法课堂上的感叹。这一美国宪政的人类学研究进路其实早已经为其他学者所提倡,Paul Kahn, The Cultural Study of Law: Reconstructing Legal Scholarship.University of Chicago Press, 1999.

   [59]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,p.81.

   [60]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,p.75.

   [61]Jack M. Balkin, Supra note 5,p.81.

   [62]Arthur O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936.

   [63]Carl Schmitt.Constitutional Theory, Jeffrey Seitzer trans, Durham: Duke University Press, 2008.

   [64]Paul Kahn, Political Theology: Four New Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, New York: Columbia University Press, p.125.

   [65]Alexander Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, Bobbs-Merrill, 1962; John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1980; Bruce Ackerman, We the People: Foundations, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1990; Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1977.

   [66]Paul Kahn, Political Theology: Four New Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, New York: Columbia University Press, p.13.

   [67]Giorgio Agamben, Profanations, Jeff Fort trans, New York: Zone Books, 2007.

   【参考文献】

   {1}赵晓力:“以共和反对民主:《联邦论》解读”,载《清华法学》2010年第6期。

   {2}[英]托马斯?霍布斯:《利维坦》,黎思复、黎廷壁译,商务印书馆1982年版。

   {3}丁晓东:“自然法抑或实证法?——理性与意志视野下的美国宪法”,载《法制与社会发展》2012年第1期。

   {4}丁晓东:“法律能规制紧急状态吗?——美国行政权扩张与自由主义法学的病理”,载《华东政法大学学报》2014年第3期。

共[1]页

丁晓东的更多文章

没有数据!
姓名:
E-mail:

内容:
输入图中字符:
看不清楚请点击刷新验证码
设为首页 | 加入收藏 | 联系我们 | 投稿须知 | 版权申明
地址:成都市科华北路64号棕南俊园86号信箱·四川大学哲学研究所办公室 邮编:610065
联系电话:86-028-85229526 电子邮箱:scuphilosophy@sina.com scuphilosophy@yahoo.com.cn
Copyright © 2005-2008 H.V , All rights reserved 技术支持:网站建设:纵横天下 备案号:蜀ICP备17004140号