完善我国宪法监督制度的构想

从宪法观念和监督体制两方面深入剖析了我国现行宪法监督制度及其存在的问题,提出了建立专门宪法监督机关模式的构想,论述了确立该体制需要解决的两个重要问题专门宪法监督机关与全国人大及其常委会的关系和专门宪法监督机关组成人员的产生方式。     

对修改现行《治安管理处罚条例》的几点思考

为适应社会治安形势发展和实现法制统一的需要,亟待对现行《治安管理处罚条例》予以调整、规范和完善。将《治安管理处罚条例》更名为《治安管理处罚法》;在修改时应遵循现实针对性与较强前瞻性相结合的原则,实体与程序并重的原则,遏制权力滥用与尊重、保障人权的原则,法制统一的原则以及民主与集中相结合的原则。     

论法院对基本权利的保护

为公民基本权利提供保护,是现代国家合法性的重要来源。普通法院在基本权利保护中发挥着重要作用。德国虽然设立了宪法法院,但保护公民基本权利的职责仍主要由其他法院承担。在没有设立宪法法院的国家,通过普通法院更是为基本权利提供司法保护的唯一途径。我国法院应当通过三种方式为基本权利提供司法保护:如果法律有保护基本权利的具体规定,法院应当直接适用法律;如果法律对基本权利的保护只作了抽象规定,法院应当对有关抽象立法进行合宪解释之后予以适用;如果法律没有作出保护基本权利的任何规定,法院可以直接适用宪法的基本权利条款。     

Casting Aside Clanking Medieval Chains: Prerogative,Statute and Article 50 after the EU Referendum

This article confronts the controversies surrounding Article 50 by analysing the relationship between statute and prerogative in the UK. The piece focuses on domestic constitutional issues and suggests a new way of classifying the relationship between statute and prerogative into two types falling under ‘the abeyance principle’ or ‘the frustration principle’. The abeyance principle means that where statute and prerogative overlap, the prerogative goes into abeyance. The frustration principle means that where statute and prerogative give rise to potential inconsistencies, but do not overlap, the prerogative cannot be used inconsistently with the intention of parliament as expressed in the relevant legislation. It then argues that Article 50 has the status of primary or ‘primary‐equivalent’ legislation which could justify applying the abeyance principle. This would mean that the trigger power would be exercised on statutory authority rather than through prerogative powers. If the courts are unable thus to construe the relevant legislation it argues EU law requires the courts to bridge the gap. Alternatively, if the abeyance principle is not applicable, it argues the frustration principle could apply but the circumstances in this litigation fall outside it. In the further alternative, EU law could require the frustration principle itself to be set aside in this case.     

宪法上的人格权

如果说有关私法上的人格权之讨论在近年已近乎白热化,那么宪法中的人格权却还只是小荷才露尖尖角。然而,在德、日等国的法制史上,一般人格权的概念却曾经先由宪法条文中引出,转而反哺于私法;而倘若忽视宪法上的人格权理论,则不可能完整理解民法上的人格权。从德、日诸国精致丰富的人格权理论观之,人格权内涵中最具特征的当是其概括性,它以保护人格的自主发展为主轴,特别保护隐私权、名誉权和自我决定权等。然而,为了克服其内容上的这种宽泛性和多元性,两国法院也确立了人格权的范围理论和多重审查基准,为人格权的保护和限制划定相对明确的界限。凡此种种,均值得吾人借鉴。     

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。     

Medical–Legal Partnerships: How Legal Services can Dramatically Improve Health Outcomes,and the Missed Opportunity to Help Women Seeking Abortions

There are significant health disparities in the United States, with low‐income and minority Americans experiencing higher rates of chronic disease and autoimmune disorders. Research has firmly established that social factors ‐ such as malnutrition, limited access to healthcare, and safe housing ‐ play a critical role in these health disparities. Medical‐Legal Partnerships are a relatively new approach to improving the health of people living in poverty by addressing the root causes of these health‐harming social factors. This article discusses the benefits of Medical‐Legal Partnerships and argues for continued expansion of the model, particularly in pediatricians’ offices, because parents are more likely to seek medical care for their children than themselves. This article further discusses how legal constraints prevent federal funding for Medical‐Legal Partnerships in abortion clinics; this creates a missed opportunity to work with women who are seeking abortions, many of whom face considerable social and economic challenges that could be addressed through legal assistance. This article digs into the legal restrictions that create this missed opportunity and proposes potential solutions to better serve the vulnerable population of abortion‐seeking women.     

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。     

行政宪政化界说

行政宪政化源于新宪政论 ,通过回顾新宪政论的研究背景 ,比较旧宪政论的创新观点 ,从而界定行政宪政化主要应当考量的五对关系因素。行政宪政化是对依法行政的内涵从宪政角度进行的提升和深化。     

韩国宪法法院变形判决制度的形成与发展

宪法法院成立之后,韩国宪法审查制度才真正获取了生命力。这一方面归功于韩国宪政建设环境的改善,另一方面则应归功于宪法法院积极主动履行职责。变形判决制度即是韩国宪法法院汲取德国经验而作的创造性变革。变形判决是相对于原形判决而言的概念。韩国《宪法法院法》规定的“违宪”或“合宪”的判决形式可称之为原形判决;宪法法院在宪法审判实践中逐渐形成的“宪法不合致”判决、“限定合宪”和“限定违宪”判决可称为变形判决。变形判决是针对复杂多样的宪法审判对象而发展出来判决形式,适应了宪法审判的实效需求,展示了一条法律问题技术化的路径。