论法人的基本权利主体地位

美国宪法并没有规定公司是基本权利主体,美国联邦最高法院在很多判例中亦认定美国宪法的特权与豁免条款不适用于公司。宪法第14修正案通过后,尤其是自19世纪80年代以来,美国联邦最高法院逐渐将宪法的保护扩大适用于公司,使得公司成为某些宪法基本权利的主体。这一转变迎合了美国经济发展的需要,使得国内统一大市场的建立成为可能。本文借鉴美国的宪法实践,细致梳理了公司作为基本权利主体的相关理论。     

Guantánamo Bay: Towards Legality?

This article outlines the US Supreme Court's approach to the habeas corpus entitlements of suspected terrorists detained in Guantánamo Bay and argues for the extension of constitutional habeas corpus rights to them. The article considers two ways in which the Supreme Court might carry out this task: first, 'the territorial approach' (based on domestic legal principles of 'unincorporated territories' and principles of leasehold), and secondly, 'the extraterritorial approach' (based on international purposive approaches to the reach of human rights treaties exemplified by the European Court of Human Rights' Article 1 jurisprudence). For reasons of effectiveness of protection, the Article expresses a clear preference for the latter. The House of Lords decision in R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence (2007) is proposed as a template for such a development. Finally the article refutes arguments rejecting such a development based on the 'trade-off thesis' and perceptions of judicial competence.     

中国宪法司法化路径探索

宪法实施中的违宪审查机制与宪法诉讼方式是两种不同机制的区别。在分析西方国家宪法实施的路径,以及中国实行宪法监督走违宪审查之路面临的困难后,根据违宪审查与宪法诉讼相别的理论,提出中国的宪法司法化方案,即违宪审查权仍由全国人大常委会行使,而由最高法院承担宪法诉讼的任务。     

The Reception of Magna Carta in Early Modern Germany,c. 1650–1800

The article examines how far the reinvigoration of Magna Carta in seventeenth-century British legal thought was received into German discourses between c. 1650 and 1800. An analysis of early modern German works on feudal law and ius publicum, of historical writings as well as of political literature reveals a formal, but no substantive reception: early modern German scholarship betrays no signs of an effort to discuss or describe the actual contents, provisions and meaning of Magna Carta. Rather, from the mid-eighteenth century onwards, the Great Charter enters political debate as a trope for a constitutional guarantee of unnamed personal liberties.     

Land Use Litigation and Low-Income Housing: Mandating Regional Fair Share Plans

With its opinion in Mt. Laurel the New Jersey Supreme Court has written a new chapter in the law of exclusionary zoning and land use regulation. The carefully reasoned and innovative opinion may even prove to be the Magna Carta of suburban low- and moderate-income housing opportunity.     

“Our People in General Have a High Degree of Freedom”

This article considers the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in National Federation of Independent Business et al v Sebelius, which questioned the constitutionality of President Obama’s signature healthcare reforms of 2009, which have become colloquially known as ‘Obamacare’. Although the Supreme Court upheld the Act as constitutional, this article contends that the Supreme Court’s reasoning can be read as another battle in the long-standing debate in American politics over the correct size and limits of the Federal Government. In upholding the healthcare reforms as a tax, rather than under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court has endorsed a view of limited government in line with the principles of classical liberalism. This has the potential to greatly restrict the scope of the Federal Government to pursue large scale expansive social welfare programmes in the future.     

Speech, privacy, and the power of the purse: lessons from the abortion "gag rule" case.

In Rust v. Sullivan, 59 U.S.L.W. 4451 (1991), the US Supreme Court ruled that neither the privacy interests of family planning clients nor the 1st Amendment interests of their counselors prevented the government from banning all discussion of abortions in federally funded family planning clinics. In doing so, the Court also reaffirmed its view that the state and federal legislatures have virtually unlimited discretion in limiting or conditioning social welfare programs, a view having even greater long-term implications for American health policy than the implications of Rust for the constitutional protection of abortion. Rust upheld the Department of Health and Human Services' 1988 directive prohibiting the use of any funds from Title X of the Public Health Service Act (authorizing family planning programs) in programs where abortion is a method of family planning. This means that a clinician may lawfully respond to a client's inquiry about abortion only with a denial that abortion is an option. Thus, while allowing women the constitutional protection to chose an abortion, the Court has allowed the legislature to freely use the power of the purse to discourage or prevent the choice of abortion. Rust's greatest impact may well be in its acceptance of the enormous power wielded by the government over funded activities, especially in health policy. Justice Rehnquist believes there is not constitutional right to health, welfare, or any other government benefit; the legislative branches of the government cannot be required by judicial interpretation of the Constitution to provide any particular benefit or service to anyone. Even when the government chooses to fund a particular benefit, it is free to condition that benefit with virtually no judicially enforceable limits on that discretion.     

The Genesis of the Austrian Model of Constitutional Review of Legislation

Abstract The European model of the constitutional review of legislation, characterized by the concentration of the constitutional review power in a single constitutional court, had its origin in the Austrian Federal Constitution of 1920. This is all the more remarkable when one considers that this Constitution established at the same time a parliamentary system of government in a fairly radical form. As the author explains, this “invention” of a constitutional court is attributable to two factors. One factor is the federal aspect. The Court was conceived by the framers of the Austrian Federal Constitution of 1920 as an umpire between federal legislation and the legislation of the states or Länder. In this respect it was meant as a substitute for the principle of the priority of federal law over state or Land law. This is manifest in the initial draft of the Constitution, where actions on questions of the constitutionality of legislation could only be brought by the Federal government (against the legislation of one or another of the states or Länder) and by the State or Land governments (against federal legislation). Right from the beginning, however, the Court could examine a parliamentary act ex officio when it had to apply such an act in another proceeding. It was this power of the Court that triggered the development of constitutional review. Its exercise gradually transformed the Court into a guardian of the Constitution as a whole, in particular, the fundamental rights of citizens. The author traces this development in the context of the concept of state and law that prevailed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. This concept included specific restrictions on constitutional review. On the basis of a different understanding of the functions of a constitution, the Court gave up these restrictions and followed the examples of the European Court of Human Rights, the German Constitutional Court and—indirectly—the American Supreme Court.     

安全抑或自由: 危机中的美国宪法简

危机时刻是验证法治国家体制适应性的真正时机，由于美国宪法没有紧急状态条款，在南北内战、一战二战、反恐战争等紧急时期美国总统往往行使“超宪法权限”侵犯公民基本权利。为保证危机中的宪法依然有效，处理好国会立法与总统紧急权力之间的重大分歧，作为制衡者的法院需要对宪法进行更加审慎的解释，但其所表现出来的实用主义政治立场变换和共和紧急法制观的转型，揭示了非常态下美国宪法解释的核心问题：要自由的宪法还是安全的宪法？这也正是当下危机频发背景下每个奉行法治和保障人权的国家面临的共同难题。     

Presidents, Political Regimes, and Contentious Supreme Court Nominations: A Historical Institutional Model

Before the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, scholars consistently pointed to the presence of divided government as an underlying reason for conflict in the confirmation process for U.S. Supreme Court nominees. However, the importance of party unity and coalition-building appointments—each of which highlights the role of the president in the process—should not be underestimated in these confirmation battles. Moreover, an examination of the sixty twentieth-century nominations reveals that a presidency-focused political regimes model provides significant explanatory force for understanding when and what types of nominees are likely to face the most resistance in the Senate. It does so by incorporating Stephen Skowronek's analytical framework for understanding presidential authority to explain how and why different periods of political time affect presidential attempts to shape the U.S. Supreme Court through appointments. In turn, the model places recent conflict in the confirmation process in historical context.     

Pulling Punches: Congressional Constraints on the Supreme Court's Constitutional Rulings, 1987–2000

To date, no study has found evidence that the U.S. Supreme Court is constrained by Congress in its constitutional decisions. We addressed the selection bias inherent in previous studies with a statute‐centered, rather than a case‐centered, analysis, following all congressional laws enacted between 1987 and 2000. We uncovered considerable congressional constraint in the Court's constitutional rulings. In particular, we found that the probability that the Rehnquist Court would strike a liberal congressional law rose between 47% and 288% as a result of the 1994 congressional elections, depending on the legislative model used.     

日本违宪审查学说面面观

日本违宪审查制是从美国移植过来的,属于美国式普通法院审查制类型。日本宪法界真正开始研究宪法诉讼是从1960年代开始的。日本违宪审查理论包括违宪审查的性质、对象等学说,法院不轻易宣布代表国民意志的国会的立法无效。日本宪法引进的违宪审查制度在日本社会中至少产生了两方面的积极影响:一是使议会和政府在行使权力过程中更为谨慎,不得不考虑宪法规范的存在;二是提高了公民的宪法意识和人权意识。     

最高人民法院在合宪性审查中的现状、困境与出路——兼对我国《立法法》第99条第1款解释

我国《立法法》预设了最高人民法院提请全国人大常委会进行合宪性审查的路径。从现有裁判文书来看,最高人民法院在实践中并未遵循我国《立法法》所预设的路径,而是在绝大多数案件中回避了合宪性审查诉求,同时又在个别案件中进行了合宪性审查,陷入了完全回避与直接审查的两难困境。造成这种困境的原因在于,我国《立法法》对最高人民法院在合宪性审查中的权力基础、权力行使程序缺乏清晰的规定。对此,亟待通过法律解释进行明确和细化,否则最高人民法院将无章可循,无法贸然提请全国人大常委会进行合宪性审查。为了化解最高人民法院面对的这一困境,有必要对我国《立法法》第99条第1款进行解释,推导出该条款在授予最高人民法院提请审查权时,还隐含着另一项未被释明的权力即预审权,其共同构成最高人民法院在合宪性审查中的权力基础;同时,为了使预审权与提请审查权的行使制度化,有必要对其行使程序进行细化,建立起预审-提请审查机制。     

法律解释如何统一——关于司法解释权的法律统一解释功能的思考

目前我国宪法解释权以及法律统一解释权处于一种权力真空状态,人们希望最高人民法院能填补这一权力空白.然而根据我国宪法所规范的国家权力结构,最高人民法院是无力承担起这一重任的.最高人民法院的法律统一解释功能是有限的,只能统一各级法院的审判解释.我国的司法改革应着眼于通过构建合理的审判制度、判例制度以及合理划分最高人民法院与各级法院解释范围,完善最高人民法院的司法统一解释功能.     

Policy of Secrecy-Pattern of Deception: What Federalist Leaders Thought About a Public Right to Know, 1794-98

Legal commentators and journalists have debated for years whether the First Amendment provides the press with special rights of access to government information and facilities. The United States Supreme Court has consistently rejected arguments that such a constitutional right for newsgathering exists. This study examines the issue from a historical perspective. It looks at the question of whether there is historical evidence in the years immediately following ratification of the First Amendment to support the modern rationale that the press has a constitutional right of access to government.     

当下中国宪法司法化的路径与方法

法院适用法律必须解释法律,而解释法律又必须进行合宪解释,合宪解释是目前我国宪法在司法中适用的最好方式,是现行体制下我国宪法司法化的最佳路径。各级人民法院在民事、刑事和行政诉讼中审理每一起案件适用法律时都应当考虑到宪法,进行合宪解释。每一位法官都是合宪解释的主体,都享有法律解释权和宪法解释权,但这并不否定最高人民法院的最高司法解释权以及全国人大常委会对法律和宪法的最终解释权。法院通过合宪解释方式间接适用宪法,不必将宪法作为裁判依据而引用,但应当在裁判说理部分引用宪法条款。法院在合宪解释过程中发现法律明显违宪时,应当中止诉讼,逐级上报,由最高人民法院报送全国人大常委会处理。     

An Analysis of Policy‐Based Congressional Responses to the U.S. Supreme Court's Constitutional Decisions

While Congress can attempt to overrule constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court by initiating the constitutional amendment process, an amendment is rarely a practicable option. Instead, Congress regularly tries to modify the impact of constitutional decisions with ordinary legislation. I analyze policy‐based responses to the Supreme Court's constitutional decisions that were initiated in Congress between 1995 and 2010. For each responsive proposal, I consider the relationship between the proposed legislation and the Court's legal holding and the relationship between the proposal and the public policy associated with the Court's decision. I find that Congress enjoys considerable success in reversing the policy impacts of the Court's decisions but is limited in its ability to overcome the Court's legal rules.     

Legislative term limits in the United States

From 1990 to 1995 almost half of the American states adopted term limits for their congressional representatives and state legislatures. Although the US Supreme Court declared these laws unconstitutional as far as federal legislators are concerned, many states are proceeding to implement term limits for their own legislatures. This article examines the historical background to rotation in office, the political and constitutional issues involved, the term limits movement and its evolving strategies, congressional action on a proposed constitutional amendment and the impact on state legislatures. It concludes that the relative decline of the term limits movement since 1995 can be explained by a number of factors, including factionalism among its supporters and improving economic conditions in the country, but that it has made its own distinctive mark on American politics and its effects will be felt over the coming years.