论原旨主义内部的理论分支——以美国联邦最高法院Heller案为例

Heller案是新旧原旨主义直接交锋并以新原旨主义为裁判依据的案件。原旨主义发展至今经历了三个主要的阶段:原初意图;原初理解;原初公意。在非原旨主义者的批评下,原旨主义已经不再是内在一致、统一的理论,然而并不能因此就否定原旨主义的理论意义,虽然原旨主义不能作为宪法解释的终点,但可以作为起点。     

美国宪法解释理论中的原旨主义与宪法第九修正案

原旨主义指依据制宪者的意图或宪法条文的含义来解释宪法,原旨主义者是美国宪法解释理论的基本阵营之一。本文简述了美国宪法解释理论中的原旨主义的基本内涵,美国宪法第九修正案的内容和解释历史,并探讨了原旨主义解释方法在第九修正案解释中的运用。     

论美国联邦最高法院宪法解释的创造性

美国联邦最高法院的宪法解释具有创造性,其主要表现在司法审查权、三重审查标准、选择性吸收理论、推翻先例和创造新的公民权利等五个方面。原旨主义和非原旨主义都会达至具有创造性的宪法解释,原旨主义具有天然的民主合法性,有时美国联邦最高法院会以原旨主义来掩饰它们具有创造性的宪法解释。宪法解释的创造性是一把双刃剑,有积极性的一面也有消极性的一面。美国联邦最高法院的宪法解释曾经也将永远具有创造性,只有如此它才能为宪法提供与时俱进的新意义。     

论诠释学意义上的原旨主义——反思惠廷顿《宪法解释》中的认识论困境

原旨主义强调宪法的原初意图对宪法解释来说具有优先和主导的地位。原旨主义首先是一种解释理论,它的目的就是使解释与制宪者的原初意图相一致,这反映了一种真理符合论意义上的方法论的哲学解释学;于是在历史诠释学理论的参照下,原旨主义就发生了认识论的危机,它的理论诉求在认识上也是不可能的。宪法解释更多的是作为读者的法官在进行意义的重新解释与建构,法官受当下问题意识的指引而在原有的文义中置入政治道德的考量,以完成解释传统与当下意义的视域融合。     

美国宪法解释中的不同民主观——原旨主义和能动主义之比较

在美国宪法解释中,不同的学者或者法官具有不同的立场和解释方式,大体上形成了两大阵营,即原旨主义解释方式和能动主义解释方式。面对司法审查制度中的反多数难题,任何一种解释方式都必须树立自身的立场,原旨主义和能动主义亦是如此。这两种解释方式都选择利用民主来为自身的合法性进行辩护,在谁在坚持民主和谁能促进民主这两个问题上两种解释方式采取了一致的立场,并给出各自的论证。通过对双方论辩内容的细致梳理,我们会发现宪法解释中对立的双方是在利用不同的民主观作为自身的理论基础。     

美国宪法解释:"麦迪逊两难"之消解

在美国宪法解释实践中长期存在着被学者们所称的“麦迪逊之两难”问题,即民主多数统治的自由与少数自由权利之间始终处于一种似乎不可消解的张力之中。不同的学者和法官由于基于各自不同的民主与宪政原则,而在宪法解释的理论与实践中采取了不同的解释方法与立场,主要分属两大宪法解释流派:原意主义和非原意主义。然而,认真考察和分析美国宪法与宪政原意与原则理想,则会得出“麦迪逊之两难”命题不过是一个假命题的结论,因为真正的民主自身包含着自由平等原则。     

美国宪法中的时间观

时间和宪法理论息息相关,不同的宪法理论对时间具有不同的想象。在源自英国的古代宪法理论中,宪法的正当性被认为奠基于久远的历史。在美国国父们的宪法理论中,宪法被视为政治科学的持续性创造,宪法应当时刻依赖人类的理性。在原旨主义的宪法理论看来,宪法起源于某个特定时间,日常时刻的宪法解释必须寻求宪法的原旨。在演化主义的宪法观看来,宪法是不断演化的,其成长有赖于时间。在以阿伦特为代表的共和主义宪法理论中,时间被设想为会在特定时刻“绽出”,只有在特定的时刻人类才能实现真正的自由。在实用主义的宪法理论中,时间被设想为一种未来的状态,宪法以永不停歇的民主实验面向未来。宪法理论中不同的时间观启示我们,应当以非本质主义的态度看待宪法。     

原旨主义、活的宪法与复杂状态下的宪法解释?

宪法解释应该遵循原初意义还是回应时代需要,是原旨主义和“活的宪法”之争的焦点所在。在对宪法裁判进行批判与维护的过程中,原意解释方法和非原意解释方法都开始走向基础主义。两种解释方法执着于单一的理念,既无法证明自己比对方更为优秀,也未能对解释实践进行全面的描述。宪法解释是一个相当复杂、语境多元的过程,在不同复杂状况下,法官拥有不同程度的解释裁量权。有鉴于此,任何将宪法解释化约为单一解释哲学的做法,都是不恰当的。     

域外宪法文本解释方法的历史演进——以美国宪法解释为例

从域外宪法文本解释方法的历史演进看,在众多宪法解释方法中,原旨主义与"活的宪法"与其说是法条解释的方法和技术,毋宁说代表了如何理解"忠于宪法"抑或切入宪法的不同进路。宪法文本解释径路和解释方法的"诸神之争",本质上是对宪法文本的话语权归属之争。通过宪法文本解释方法的讨论,可藉以"发现"宪法在新的社会条件下"原本可能有的"的原旨与含义。在此过程中,宪法文本解释活动将立法机制、司法实践、学术研究统摄在以宪法文本为形式的共同基础上,以形成稳定的政治、经济和社会秩序。     

美国种族隔离案件裁决与宪法解释方法

宪法解释是法院依照宪法审理案件、体现对社会动态合宪性评价的重要方式。通过对有关种族隔离案件的裁决,美国最高法院在推翻种族隔离、发展民权运动的历程中扮演着重要角色。本文选取三个典型案例——使"平等隔离"理论合宪化的"普莱西案"、推翻"平等隔离"理论的"布朗第一案"和将"平等保护"条款适用于联邦政府的"特区学校第一案"——阐述原旨主义与非原旨主义的论争以及历史解释和结构解释等宪法解释方法的运用。多种宪法解释方法时常结合使用,在具体案件审理中可能需要综合予以考虑。     

The First Amendment Originalism of Justices Brennan,Scalia and Thomas

Originalism holds that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent or original meaning of the Constitution, that original intent is not only relevant but authoritative, and that judges are obligated to follow the framers’ original intent and meaning when resolving cases. Normative questions surrounding originalism's merit have produced one of the great constitutional debates of recent decades. This article compares and contrasts the First Amendment originalism of three justices: William Brennan, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. It examines every First Amendment opinion prior to the 2011 term written by the justices that contains originalism. The article concludes that all three justices used originalism to support a wide variety of arguments in a wide variety of First Amendment cases. In addition, the analysis demonstrates that Justices Scalia and Thomas more frequently supported the First Amendment in opinions in which they used originalism, a finding that contradicts the idea that originalism is associated with judicial restraint. The article contends that, with a few minor exceptions, none of the justices used originalism in a consistent way. Finally, the article offers perspectives on originalism's influence on current First Amendment jurisprudence and the limitations of using originalism for constitutional interpretations.     

论司法能动主义的基础

司法能动主义强调法官的能动性,认为法官可以超越成文法和先例的约束进行司法解释,以法官自己对宪法的理解来代替立法、行政机关的决定。司法能动主义有着深厚的理论与现实的基础,其法哲学基础是新原意主义,宪政基础是共和主义,而现实依据则包括法官自由裁量权、行政权的扩张、自治法向回应法的转变等。     

Federalists in the Attic: Original Intent, the Heritage Movement, and Democratic Theory

Although the United States is often criticized for its lack of historical consciousness, historicity provides a compelling rhetorical trump in constitutional argument, particularly according to advocates of original under-standing jurisprudence or "originalism." Originalism has also proven to be quite popular as a constitutional position, especially in public discourse outside academe and the courts. I argue that originalism's appeal derives from Americans'interest in heritage. Using the literature on public history, memory, and cultural studies to distinguish the cultural phenomenon of heritage from history proper, I argue that originalism, like heritage, offers the possibility of an immediate and authentic encounter with the past tied to a critique of modernism as both antidemocratic and inauthentic. Originalism portrays the federal period as a special moment of civic unity, whose virtues have been preserved by the larger public, but have been eroded among elites by modernity.     

美国宪法解释方法论之辨思

自美国宪法诞生至今,关于宪法解释方法存在着各种方法论流派,大致可以把它们概括为解释主义与非解释主义、原意主义与非原意主义、积极主义与消极主义、历史主义、德沃金主义和基础主义等。不同的方法,具有各自不同的理论体系。宪法解释方法论之梳理与辨思,在于揭示其内在法理及差异,为正确解释宪法文本提供理想之途。     

Originalism 2.0 Meets the First Amendment: The “New Originalism,” Interpretive Methodology,and Freedom of Expression

Constitutional originalism emerged as a legal and political movement in the last quarter of the twentieth century largely as a conservative reaction to perceived excesses of the Supreme Court of the United States. Early originalist attempts to formulate a coherent constitutional methodology were met with stinging criticism from many scholars. In recent years, a group of constitutional scholars has championed a different approach under the rubric “the New Originalism.” One of the key methodological innovations of New Originalism has been to reject the search for the intentions of the framer or ratifiers of constitutional provisions and instead seek to identify the “original public meaning” of such provisions. This article explores New Originalism in the context of the First Amendment speech and press clauses. The article also analyzes originalist opinions by Supreme Court justices to determine if New Originalism is affecting how the justices approach First Amendment interpretation.     

Property rights in personal data: Learning from the American discourse

This contribution is an attempt to facilitate a meaningful European discussion on propertization of personal data by explaining the idea as it emerged in its ‘mother-jurisdiction’, the United States. The piece starts with an overview of how the current US legal system addresses the data protection problem and whether, according to the US commentators, the law does it effectively. Furthermore, the contribution presents propertization of personal information as an alternative to the existing data protection regime and one of the ways to fill in the alleged gaps in the US data protection system. The article maps the US propertization debate. Pro-propertization arguments are considered from economic perspective as well as from the perspective of the limitations of the US legal and political system. In continuation it analyses proposals on how property rights in personal data would have to be regulated, if at all, in case the idea of propertization is accepted. The main points of criticism of propertization are also sketched. The article concludes with a brief summary of the US propertization discourse and, most importantly, with a list of the lessons Europeans can learn from their American counterparts engaging in the debate in the home jurisdiction. Among the main messages is that the outcome of the debate depends on the definition of the problem propertization is called on to tackle, and that it is the substance of the actual rights with regard to personal data that matters, and not whether we label them as property rights or not.     

走出二元对立的思维困境——阿克曼对美国宪法变革机制的检讨

阿克曼在区分宪法政治和常态政治的前提下,通过分析美国宪法史上的重要事件,根据二元民主的宪法理论指出:美国宪法政治时期的宪法变革经历了发出宪法改革的信号、提出宪法改革方案、决定宪法改革命运的程序、宪法改革方案的批准和宪法改革成果的巩固五个阶段。阿克曼关于宪法变革的历史学与社会学观点,不仅消解了法律形式主义和法律现实主义的对立,他还进一步以此为基础提出了"人民主权动议"和"活宪法"的宪法修正理论。阿克曼的宪法变革理论虽具现实性,但却有着不确定性的缺陷。因此,阿克曼所要解决的,恰恰是理性与经验之对立所造成的不确定性这一法律理论的永恒主题。     

英国陪审团评议秘密规则

在英国,陪审团审判不仅是审判手段和宪法的支柱之一,它还显示着自由的存在.陪审团评议秘密规则是英国古老的普通法规则,至今仍然得到判例的认可.该规则的研究可以揭示出丰富的内容.