政治文明与宪政的关系

政治文明是一个从物质文明和精神文明之中抽象出来的且相对独立的概念。从内涵上说 ,政治文明的核心是政治民主 ;从外延上说 ,政治文明包括政治观念的文明、政治规范的文明和政治秩序的文明。政治文明同宪政的关系表现为 :政治文明是宪政的前提和基础 ;宪政是政治文明的支柱和灵魂 ;现代政治文明发展的主流、本质和终极趋向是政治文明的宪法化和宪政文明。文章最后还讨论了政治文明与中国宪政的建构问题 :即建构“民主”与“宪政”的协调并用模式 ,重塑“权力”与“权利”的互动关系模式及完善“国家”和“社会”的二元结构模式     

政治文明的宪政维度

政治文明是个历史的范畴 ,不能无指向、无语境地空谈。如果以近现代意义上的宪法诞生为界限 ,那么 ,在此之前的“政治文明”即古典政治文明 ,与宪政似无太大联系 ;但宪法诞生后 ,政治文明就与宪政形成了不可分割的结构性关联。从历史理性的角度看 ,宪政是近现代政治文明的必然选择 ,是近现代政治文明的基础与标志 ;从功能分析的角度看 ,宪政比民主更契合近现代政治文明的核心内容 ,更适合充当近现代政治文明之“核心”这一角色 ;从价值理性的角度看 ,宪政的“真”、“善”、“美”内质使其鹤立于一般的政治要素群 ,宪政乃近现代政治文明之灵魂。     

孙中山对西方近代宪政文化之扬弃

两种宪政文化 宪政文化,是以宪法为基础的民主的政治状态。就实质言之,宪政文化指的是一种民主的政治状态,区别于独裁、专制的政治状态;从法律特征言之,宪政文化指的是建立于宪法的基础上的政治状态,指明了宪法在政治生活中的地位与作用(将宪法作为民主政治的集中体现的共识正是反映了这一点)。 宪政文化包含了二个方面的属性:价值属性和操作属性。以大多数人的利益为政治的目标是宪政文化的价值属性即根本属性,政治的过程由大多数人参与其中则是宪政文化的操作     

中国宪法的宪政取向与缺失--基于中国现行宪法的文本分析

在人类政治智慧的发明中,宪政是最有可能实现民主、自由、人权、法治和公正,最有利于保证社会秩序和国家稳定的制度设计和价值理念,现代宪政蕴含的逻辑至少包括人民主权、宪法法律至上、尊重和保障人权、权力机关优位、依法行政、公正司法、监督和制约公权力等方面.我国现行宪法虽在很大程度上体现了现代宪政文明的价值取向,但仍存在着宪法价值取向上国家主义至上和过于理想化倾向、宪法基本原则表述不明确、公民基本权利与自由保障乏力、国家权力分配体制不明确、秩序缺位和面临宪法实施困境等宪政缺失.对此在宪政建设过程中必须予以正视,以弥合宪法与宪政的差距.     

宪法价值论

宪法在目的和手段两方面体现其基本价值。作为宪法的实体价值，人民主权植根于一定的物质利益关系，并成为近现代立宪社会发展的根本导向，在宪政实践的不同层次上得以实现；作为宪法的形式价值，权利——权力秩序的任务在于调整和理顺宪政社会中权利与权力这一政治矛盾的关系，是人民主权得以实现的基本形式。这两重价值相互依存、相互促进，必然要求现代社会保证宪法的至上权威，完善宪政制度和组织结构，实现宪法主治     

宪政正当性论略

宪政是按宪法运作的政治和政治体制,是颁布宪法的必然目标和实践归属。我国一些学者却明确提出了“不能把‘宪政’作为我国的基本政治概念”的主张,这种“宪政否定论”不仅在一定程度上淡化新中国对宪政建设的贡献,也削弱我国公民本来就很淡薄的宪法意识,应予纠正。宪政是一个比民主、法治和人权抽象程度更高的概念,可以涵括我国现行政治理念,客观地对待现代政治文明,确立宪政的目标,加强宪法实施,把宪法规定的东西切实落实下去,是一种积极、稳妥、务实的民主政治发展道路。     

西方宪政文化浅议

<正> “宪法”一词出现于中国,由来已久。《尚书》有“监于先王成宪,其永无愆”,《国语·晋书》则有“赏善罚奸,国之宪法”之说。这里所提及的“宪”、“宪法”并无现代意蕴,与“刑”、“法”同义,不过是祖先语汇丰富的又一例证而已。就制度而言,立宪政体确立于近代。近代革命将权利、自由、平等的理念熔铸于宪法之中,宪政取代专制政体成为近现代国家共同的追求和现实,宪政与民主政治同义。伴随着西方近代文明巨浪对     

伦理的宪法价值初探

伦理与宪法的交融在德法并治的现代社会显得尤为重要和突出。本文重点讨论了伦理的宪法价值,即在以人为本的逻辑起点下尊重人性尊严,这为伦理的宪法价值的基础价值;实现不朽的自由、平等、博爱的应然价值,即实现伦理的宪法价值的具体价值体现;最终建立起正义的宪政文明,这方面就是终极价值的归属。本文旨在宏观方面寻求各个国家和民族可以对话的理想平台,找到符合正义原则的宪政制度;在微观层面探析伦理之于宪法的作用,推动宪法不断向良、善方向发展。     

宪政中的程序论纲

宪政中的程序即宪法程序 ,是其外在价值与内在价值的统一 ,其构建模式有两种 ,即严格规则模式和正当程序模式。结合我国宪政建设的实践 ,当前的宪政建设应在选择正当程序模式基础上优先发展宪法程序。     

宪法泛政治化的逻辑归谬与历史反思

马伯里诉麦迪逊案创立的“政治问题不审查”之宪法惯例及与美国宪法传统相契合的政治观,将对宪法正当性的逻辑判断转读为对于主体的道德依赖,其生成的逻辑结构未免带有强迫性,导致宪法的泛政治化。近代旧中国立宪的逻辑怪圈亦然:宪法“移植”使得“应然宪法”性状无法获得“实然宪法”有效地证明,则悖论产生;“自上而下”的立宪路径和权力本位,使得宪法缺少正当性基础;明显的“工具性”特征,造成“政治”与“宪法”的“目标冲突”,形成“体”和“用”的二律背反。事实就是:宪法的泛政治化是一个世界现象,防止宪法泛政治化,宪法司法化具有价值上的合理性,但以司法化为导向的中国宪政目标之实现尚需经历一个长期的准备阶段,要防止两种极端倾向:悲观主义和冒进主义。     

Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana on Avidyā

The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington

Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s texts. Huntington argues instead that mādhyamikas reject reasoning, distrust logic and do not offer arguments. He also argues that interpreters ought to recuse themselves from argument in order to be faithful to these texts. I demonstrate that he is wrong in all respects: Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti deploy arguments, take themselves to do so, and even if they did not, we would be wise to do so in commenting on their texts.     

Illumination,Imagination, Creativity: Rājaśekhara,Kuntaka, and Jagannātha on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pratibhā</Emphasis>

Sanskrit poeticians make the visionary faculty of pratibhā a necessary part of the professional poet’s make-up. The term has a pre-history in Bhartṛhari’s linguistic metaphysics, where it is used to explain the unitary perception of meaning. This essay examines the relation between pratibhā and possible theories of the imagination, with a focus on three unusual theoreticians—Rājaśekhara, Kuntaka, and Jagannātha Paṇḍita. Rājaśekhara offers an analysis of pratibhā that is heavily interactive, requiring the discerning presence of the bhāvaka listener or critic; he also positions pratibhā in relation to Bildung (vyutpatti) and practice. For Kuntaka, pratibhā, never an ex nihilo creation by a poet, serves as the basis for the peculiar forms of intensified insight and experience that constitute poetry; these may also involve the creative scrambling and re-articulation of the object in terms of its systemic composition. At times, Kuntaka’s pratibhā comes close to a strong notion of imaginative process. But the full-fledged thematization of the imagination, and of pratibhā as its support and mechanism, is best seen in the seventeenth-century debates preserved for us by Jagannātha. A link is suggested between the discourse of poetic imagination in Jagannātha and similar themes that turn up in Indo-Persian poets such as Bedil.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.     

The Supreme Array Scripture: A New Interpretation of the Title “Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra”

This article argues for a new interpretation of the Sanskrit compound gaṇḍa-vyūha as it is used in the common title of the Mahāyāna text the Gaṇḍavyūha-Sūtra.The author begins by providing a brief history of the sūtra’s appellations in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Next, the meanings of gaṇḍa (the problematic member of the compound) are explored. The author proposes that contemporary scholars have overlooked a meaning of gaṇḍa occurring in some compounds, wherein gaṇḍa can mean simply “great,” “big” or “massive.” This general sense is particularly common in the compound gaṇda-śaila (a “massive rock” or “boulder”) and is found in such texts as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Harivaṃśa and the Harṣacarita. Following the discussion of Gaṇḍa, the author examines the term vyūha (“array”) as it is used in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. The article concludes with the suggestion that a more appropriate translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra would be “The Supreme array Scripture.”     

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy Among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?

The concept of avidyā or ignorance is central to the Advaita Vedāntic position of Śȧnkara. The post-Śaṅkara Advaitins wrote sub-commentaries on the original texts of Śaṅkara with the intention of strengthening his views. Over the passage of time the views of these sub-commentators of Śaṅkara came to be regarded as representing the doctrine of Advaita particularly with regard to the concept of avidyā. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a scholar-monk of Holenarsipur, challenged the accepted tradition through the publication of his work Mūlāvidyānirāsaḥ, particularly with regard to the avidyādoctrine. It was his contention that the post-Śaṅkara commentators brought their own innovations particularly on the nature of avidyā. This was the idea of mūlāvidyā or ‘root ignorance’, a positive entity which is the material cause of the phenomenal world. Saraswati argues that such an idea of mūlāvidyā is not to be found in the bhāṣyas (commentaries) of Śaṅkara and is foisted upon Śaṅkara. This paper attempts to show that although Śaṅkara may not have explicitly favoured such a view of mūlāvidyā, his lack of clarity on the nature of avidyā left enough scope for the post-Śaṅkara commentators to take such a position on avidyā.     

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, Hemident, and Bluestar are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000. Substances tested include saliva, semen, potato, tomato, tomato sauce, tomato sauce with meat, red onion, red kidney bean, horseradish, 0.1 M ascorbic acid, 5% bleach, 10% cupric sulfate, 10% ferric sulfate, and 10% nickel chloride. Of all the substances tested, not one of the household items reacted with every test; however, the chemicals did. DNA was recovered and amplified from luminol, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, and Bluestar, but not from leuchomalachite green or Hemident.