Constitutional democracy and the legitimacy of judicial review

It has long been argued that the institution of judicial review is incompatible with democratic institutions. This criticism usually relies on a procedural conception of democracy, according to which democracy is essentially a form of government defined by equal political rights and majority rule. I argue that if we see democracy not just as a form of government, but more basically as a form of sovereignty, then there is a way to conceive of judicial review as a legitimate democratic institution. The conception of democracy that stems from the social contract tradition of Locke, Rousseau, Kant and Rawls, is based in an ideal of the equality, independence, and original political jurisdiction of all citizens. Certain equal basic rights, in addition to equal political rights, are a part of democratic sovereignty. In exercising their constituent power at the level of constitutional choice, free and equal persons could choose judicial review as one of the constitutional mechanisms for protecting their equal basic rights. As such, judicial review can be seen as a kind of shared precommitment by sovereign citizens to maintaining their equal status in the exercise of their political rights in ordinary legislative procedures. I discuss the conditions under which judicial review is appropriate in a constitutional democracy. This argument is contrasted with Hamilton's traditional argument for judicial review, based in separation of powers and the nature of judicial authority. I conclude with some remarks on the consequences for constitutional interpretation.I am indebted to John Rawls and Burton Dreben for their helpful advice and their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.     

论邓小平的政法队伍素质建设思想

政治队伍素质建设思想是邓小平法律思想的重要内容。邓小平同志不仅充分意识到政法队伍素质建没的重要性,而且对加强政法队伍素质建设的紧迫性亦有深刻认识。他的政法队伍素质建设思想包含法律素质建设、道德素质建设、政治素质建设等三个方面的内容。     

论我国行政自由裁量权的司法审查

行政自由裁量权是行政主体在行使其职能时必不可少的权力,其存在有其正当合理性。从理论上讲,不存在不受控制的权力;从现实上看,当前,在我国行政执法过程中,存在着大量行政自由裁量权被滥用的事实。将行政自由裁量权置于司法的监督与控制之下,以防范滥用的行政权力侵害公民的合法权益,是我国现代法治建设急需要解决的重大课题。     

反对司法审查的核心理由

本文清楚地阐述了反对立法的司法审查的核心理由,适些理由是在特殊宪法体系下,封特殊决策和司法审查出现的历史的简洁讨论中得出的。本文批判司法审查基于两个基础：第一,文章主张没有理由认为由司法审查保护权利能比由民主的立法机关做得更好。第二,本文认为,除了产生的结果外,司法审查是民主但不正当的。然而,反对司法审查的理由也不是绝对或者无条件的。在本文中,这些理由以若干条件为前提,包括假定社会有着运作良好的民主机构,社会申的大部分公民认真对待权利（即使他们可能并不赞同他们拥有的权利）。文章末尾则讨论这些前提条件丧失时会出现的情形。     

论入世后我国的司法审查

司法审查是法院对行政行所进行审查,法院是司法审查最合适的主体,本文就我国在入世后的司法审查问题,进行了探讨和研究。笔者认为我国司法审查的范围应该有所扩大,而司法审查所适用的法律,虽然主要应该是国内立法,但WTO相关协定对法院的司法审查也应该有一定的参考价值。     

宪法解释与宪法理解

一 宪法解释之涵义，目前学术界的理解如同对法律解释的理解一样，存在着不同的认识，举其要者，有以下两种代表性的观点： 第一，宪法解释是指一定的国家机关以其享有的宪法解释权对宪法规范的内容、涵义及界限所作的说明。持这种观点者在目前的中国宪法学界占主导地位，是一种通说。代表性的有：“宪法解释，顾名思义，就是有权解释宪法的机构依照一定的解释程序对宪法的含义所作的解释和说明。”①“宪法解释，就是宪法解释机关依照法定权限和程序，根据宪政精神和社会宪政实际需要，对宪法条文的具体含义和适用范围所作的补充说明。”②…