美国宪法解释的原意主义研究

发布时间：2018-05-06 21:23

本文选题：宪法解释 + 原意主义　；参考：《山东大学》2010年博士论文

【摘要】： 宪法解释理论的研究已经成为宪法学者所关注的前沿问题,也是中国宪法学亟待解决的重大课题。任何解释都离不开方法的指导与制约,方法是保证解释客观性的手段,因此宪法解释方法的研究应当成宪法解释学的核心问题。国内宪法解释方法的研究刚刚起步,而美国宪法解释方法的研究由于成文宪法的性质以及大量宪法解释实践的需求已经伴随着美国宪政进程日臻成熟与体系化。美国宪法解释中关于原意主义的争论一直持续至今,原意主义者不仅与非原意主义者进行论战,原意主义者内部也是观点迥异。因此,以原意主义方法论作为切入点,就可以全面理解把握美国宪法解释理论与方法。本文对美国原意主义方法论进行了系统的全方位的分析与论证。首次提出了原意主义的类型划分,梳理了原意主义的发展历史,具体阐述原初理解理论和文本主义理论,分析原意主义的正当性基础以及原意主义针对质疑所做的辩驳,从而揭示了原意主义维护民主与法治的积极意义以及自身的理论局限性,对于中国宪法解释方法论的完善具有一定程度上的填补空白之效。本文内容主要由以下六个部分组成。第一章对原意主义的概念进行阐释。本文认为,应当将原意主义定位为一种宪法判决理论,或者说司法化的宪法解释理论。原意主义理论经历了从原初意图理论,到原初含义理论,再到语义学原意主义的发展脉络。尽管原意主义者之间存在分歧,但他们所共享的核心主张就是,应当根据制宪者的原初意图以及宪法文本的原初含义来解释宪法。根据对于先例的重视程度、对于解释目标的态度可以将原意主义划分为强硬原意主义与柔性原意主义、严格原意主义与温和原意主义。当代原意主义最重要的两个类别则是原初文本主义和原初意图主义。最合理的原意主义类型应当是综合原初文本主义和原初意图主义二者优势的温和形式的原意主义。第二章梳理了原意主义在美国宪法解释理论与实践中的发展演变。第一阶段是从建国时期一直到19世纪晚期,不证自明的文本原意主义一直占据宪法解释的正统地位。第二阶段开始于20世纪早期,随着反抗形式主义革命以及现代司法权力的兴起,原意主义遭遇边缘化并逐渐衰落。第三阶段是自从20世纪80年代,新政联盟的分裂以及新的保守政治运动的再现,为沉寂多年的原意主义的复苏提供了政治空间。尽管1987年里根总统对原意主义者博克的提名遭到了参议院的否决,但是不可否认的是原意主义理论经过稳步发展达到了一个高峰,并且朝着精细化、复合化的方向发展,保持着经久不衰。通过分析原意主义在美国宪法理论以及宪法判决实践中的源头及其发展脉络,我们可以清晰地发现原意主义理论的发展演变与美国宪政发展历程密切相关,与宪法存身于其中的社会的整体变革、政治运动的发展以及道德观念的变迁密切相关。第三章具体分析了两种典型的原意主义理论。博克的原初理解理论强调,只有原初理解才能满足任何宪法判决理论为了具有民主的合法性所必须满足的标准,只有这一方法才符合美国共和制度的设计。原因在于,原初理解理论要求法官探求制宪者意图和宪法文本在获得批准时公众的理解,并且原初理解理论还可以指引法官在原则的推导、界定以及适用三个方面同时做到中立,以此确保法官权威的合法性。斯卡里亚的文本主义既不是严格解释主义,也不是文本虚无主义,而是对文本的合理解释。宪法解释的重大分歧不在于制宪者意图与客观含义之间,而是在于原初含义与当下含义之间。斯卡里亚批判了“活的宪法”这种宪法进化论的主张,并认为原意主义是一种脱离法官个人偏好的历史标准,一种更能适应司法审查体系的解释方法。第四章从四个方面分析了原意主义的正当性基础。首先,原意主义的正当性来源于人民主权原则的要求。宪法强调的是“人民对有限政府的同意”,司法部门被设计成人民具体意志的实施者,因此司法部门只能通过客观地适用这些在制宪时人民就同意的原则来获取权威。原意主义方法还有助于化解“反多数主义难题”,通过维护宪法的权威来促进民主的价值。其次,原意主义的正当性来源于成文宪法的要求。宪法的成文性内在地要求固定化与确定性,因此宪法在通过之时其含义就已经固定下来,法官不能做出根据制宪者的意图没有被成文宪法所认可的解释。成文宪法是法律文件,具有根本法的地位,必然要求解释者根据宪法的原意,以法律的方式对它进行解释。宪法作为法律文本承载着作者意图。宪法解释者只有严格寻求文本作者的理性和意图,才能保证解释结果的客观性。再次,原意主义的正当性来源于分权与制衡机制的要求。分权制衡机制要求不经民主选举产生的法官应当遵从制宪者的原初意图,不僭越司法权的界限,否则将会埋下法官“造法”的火种。最后,原意主义的正当性来源于宪法的中立原则的要求。司法审查权力本身应当是严格“司法性的”,司法部门应当充分尊重其他政府部门在它们的宪法权力范围内所做出的决策。法官无权改变法律或宪法。宪法必须按照制宪者的原初意图或者宪法的原初含义进行解释,因此法官必须选择那些能够中立适用的原则,这是防止宪法过度政治化的屏障。第五章分析了原意主义遭遇的质疑以及做出的辩驳。首当其冲的质疑就是,由于原意主义方法有赖于精密的历史研究,而历史资料一定程度上的匮乏以及法官的历史研究能力的有限性造成在实践中难以确定制宪者的原意以及宪法文本的原意。原意主义者认为,这样的质疑只是说明了历史研究的难度,并不能直接导致原意主义不可行的结论。第二,是基于民主视角的质疑。1787年宪法存在诸多民主性缺陷,而且修宪程序极其繁琐。如果再要求强制遵守制宪者的原初意图的话,那就是用“过去的死人之手治理国家”。而根据潜在主权论,原意主义并非简单或者武断地将死者的政治偏好强加给活着的人,它确认了主权的连续性,而且保留下了主权在现代的再次表达机制。第三,是基于文本不确定性论的质疑。所有文本不确定论不同程度地解构了作者对文本的控制与剥夺,消解了固定而确切的文本意义。为了维护法治传统,原意主义担负起“反解构”的理论使命,指出对于文本不确定性的弥补并非宪法解释的任务,而是属于政治部门的宪法阐释的范畴。第四,是基于分权与制衡机制的质疑。司法能动主义主张,法院在政治生活中发挥着实质性的和积极的政策导向作用,法官可以根据社会现实和实际需要进行创造性解释。原意主义则主张,司法权只是一种判断权,最高法院要保持对宪法的忠诚就应当遵从立法和行政等由选举产生的政治机关所做出的法律和政策,尽量避免将法官个人的价值判断适用到判决之中。原意主义与司法能动主义之争的实质在于对司法权在宪政体制中的恰当角色的不同认识。需要强调的是,过分强化司法能动主义倾向将会给法院带来沉重的政治负担,侵蚀其自身存在的基础。法院应当寻求在司法克制框架下的适当的能动。此外,非原意主义者还提出了制宪者本身并未要求解释者忠诚于原意以及宪法文本中含有反原意主义的条款等质疑,原意主义者基于自身立场做出了辩驳。第六章对原意主义理论进行全面综合的评析。原意主义理论是对宪法解释客观性的一种追求,遵循原意主义解释方法,可以保障判决的可预测性和法的安定性价值。从原意主义维护人民主权理论、坚持宪法文本权威性的理论内涵而言,原意主义也是符合宪政框架下民主与法治的目的的宪法解释理论。其局限性在于：过度强调法律的确定性,丧失宪法解释应有的灵活性,忽视了解释者的主观价值判断、社会现实因素、普通法的造法传统对宪法判决的影响。原意主义与非原意主义之争的实质在于先定约束与后代民主的关系、宪法解释的客观性与创造性的关系、宪法的稳定性与适应性的关系。没有任何一种解释理论能够单独解说法院的解释实践,法院的解释实践也没有遵循任何一种解释理论。法院在宪法解释的过程中,不仅要遵循宪法文本、制宪者意图、宪法先例、制宪历史,还要考虑社会现实的合理需求、公共政策以及道德伦理,实现宪法解释的客观性与创造性的融合迁就,既维护宪法文本的权威性与稳定性,又能使宪法与时俱进,适应不断变化的社会需求。
[Abstract]:The study of the theory of constitutional interpretation has become a frontier issue that the constitutional scholars pay attention to. It is also a major issue to be solved in Chinese constitutional law. Any explanation can not be separated from the guidance and restriction of methods. The method is the means to ensure the interpretation of objectivity. Therefore, the study of the constitutional interpretation method should be the core issue of constitutional hermeneutics. The study of interpretation methods has just started, and the study of American constitutional interpretation method has been accompanied by the maturity and systematization of the American constitutional process due to the nature of the written constitution and the demand for a large number of constitutional interpretations. The argument of the original idealism in the American constitutional interpretation has been continued, and the original idealists not only with the non original owners. The righteous carries on the debate, and the original idealists are also different in their views. Therefore, taking the methodology of original idealism as a breakthrough point, we can fully understand and grasp the theory and method of the American constitutional interpretation. This paper makes a systematic and comprehensive analysis and demonstration of the methodology of the American original idealism. The history of the development of the original meaning doctrine, expound the original understanding theory and the textual theory, analyze the justifiable foundation of the original meaning and the refutation of the original meaning doctrine, thus reveal the positive meaning of the original meaning doctrine to maintain democracy and the rule of law and the limitation of its own theory, and finish the theory of interpretation of the constitution of China. Good has some effect to fill gaps. The content of this paper is mainly composed of six parts.
The first chapter explains the concept of idealism. This article holds that idealism should be defined as a theory of constitutional judgment, or judicial interpretation of the constitution. The theory of original idealism has gone through the theory of original intention, to the theory of original meaning, and then to the development of semantics of the original idealism. The core proposition they share is that the constitution should be explained in accordance with the original intention of the constitution maker and the original meaning of the constitutional text. According to the importance of the precedent, the attitude to the interpretation of the target can be divided into the original idealism and the flexible original idealism, and the original idealism and the gentle original intention. The most important two categories of contemporary originality are original textivism and original intentional doctrine. The most reasonable type of original meaning should be the mild form of primalism which combines the advantages of the original original textivism and the original intentional two.
The second chapter combs the development and evolution of the theory and practice of the original meaning doctrine in the interpretation of American Constitution. The first stage is from the founding of the people's Republic to the late nineteenth Century. The unproof text fundamentalism has occupied the orthodox position of the constitutional interpretation. The second stage began in the early twentieth Century, with the revolutions against the formalism and the modern judicial power. The rise of force, the marginalization and gradual decline of idealism. The third stage is that since 1980s, the division of the new deal alliance and the reappearance of the new conservative political movement provided the political space for the resurgence of the silence for years of original idealism. In 1987, President Reagan's nomination for the original idealist Bok was denied the Senate. But it is undeniable that the theory of original meaning has reached a peak through steady development and has been developing towards a fine and complex direction. By analyzing the origin and development of the constitutional theory and the practice of constitutional judgment in the United States, we can clearly find the principle of original meaning. The development and evolution of the theory are closely related to the development of constitutional government in the United States. It is closely related to the whole reform of the society, the development of political movement and the change of moral concept.
The third chapter concretely analyzes the two typical theories of original meaning. Bock's original understanding theory emphasizes that only the original understanding can satisfy the standard that any constitutional judgment theory must meet with the legitimacy of democracy. Only this method fits the design of the American Republican system. The reason is that the original understanding theory requires the judge. The intent of the constitutionalism and the constitutional text are understood by the public at the time of approval, and the original understanding theory can also guide the judge to be neutral in three aspects, such as the derivation, definition and application of the principle, so as to ensure the legitimacy of the judge's authority. The major differences in the interpretation of the constitution are not between the intention and the objective meaning of the constitution, but between the original meaning and the present meaning. It is more suitable for the interpretation of the judicial review system.
The fourth chapter analyzes the justifiable basis of the original meaning from four aspects. First, the legitimacy of the original idea comes from the requirements of the principle of the people's sovereignty. The constitution emphasizes the "people's consent to the limited government", and the judicial department is designed to be the implementer of the people's specific will, so the judicial department can only apply these in the system objectively. In the constitution, the people can obtain authority on the principle of consent. The original iticism method also helps to resolve the "anti majority problem" and to promote the value of democracy by maintaining the authority of the constitution. Secondly, the legitimacy of the original meaning is derived from the requirements of the written constitution. The constitutional nature of the Constitution requires internal fixation and certainty, so the constitution is through. The meaning of the constitution is fixed at the time of passing. The judge can not make an interpretation which is not approved by the constitution according to the intention of the constitution maker. The written constitution is a legal document and has the status of the root law. The interpreter will inevitably require the interpreter to explain it in the way of the constitution. The constitution, as a legal text, carries the author's meaning. A constitutional interpreter only strictly seeks the rationality and intention of the author of the text to ensure the objectivity of the interpretation results. Again, the legitimacy of the original idea comes from the requirement of decentralization and balance mechanism. In the end, the justitiality of the original idea comes from the requirement of the principle of neutrality in the constitution. The judicial review power itself should be strictly "judicial", and the judicial department should fully respect the decision made by other government departments in their constitutional powers. The judges are not entitled to change the law. Or constitution. The constitution must be interpreted in accordance with the original intention of the constituent of the constitution or the original meaning of the constitution, so the judge must choose the principles that can be neutrally applied, which is the barrier to prevent the overpoliticization of the constitution.
The fifth chapter analyzes the question and the refutation of the experience of the original itenism. The first question is that the original meaning of the original itenism depends on the precise historical study, the lack of historical data and the limited ability of the judge's history research, which makes it difficult to determine the original meaning of the Constitution maker in practice and Xian Fawen. Original meaning. The original idealists believe that such a challenge only illustrates the difficulty of historical research and does not directly lead to the infeasible conclusion of the original idealism. Second, it is based on the democratic perspective that there are many Democratic defects in the constitution of.1787, and the constitutional procedure is extremely complicated. The picture is to use "the hands of the dead of the past to govern the country". According to the theory of potential sovereignty, it is not simple or arbitrary to impose the deceased's political preferences on the living. It confirms the continuity of sovereignty and preserves the mechanism of the reexpression of sovereignty in modern times. Third, based on the theory of text uncertainty. All textual uncertainty deconstructs the author's control and deprivation to the text to a different extent. It dispels the fixed and exact text meaning. In order to maintain the tradition of the rule of law, the original meaning doctrine bears the theoretical mission of "Deconstruction", points out the task of making up for the text uncertainty and not the constitutional interpretation, but belongs to the political department. The category of constitutional interpretation. Fourth, it is based on the question of decentralization and balance mechanism. Judicial activism advocates that the court plays a substantial and positive policy oriented role in political life, and the judge can make creative interpretations according to social reality and actual needs. In order to maintain the loyalty of the constitution, the court should comply with the laws and policies made by the elected political organs, such as the legislature and the administration, and try to avoid applying the judge's judgment of value to the judgment. The essence of the dispute between the original idealism and the judicial activism lies in the different recognition of the proper role of the judicial power in the constitutional system. It is important to emphasize that excessive strengthening of judicial activism will bring a heavy political burden to the court and corrode its own existence. The court should seek the appropriate activism under the framework of judicial restraint. Besides, the non idealists also put forward the constitutionalists themselves and did not require the interpreter to be loyal to the original meaning and Xian Fawen. This contains questions such as anti idealism, and the original idealists refute it based on their own position.
The sixth chapter makes a comprehensive and comprehensive analysis of the theory of original itatiism. The theory of original italism is a pursuit for the objectivity of the interpretation of the constitution. Following the means of original meaning, it can guarantee the predictability of the judgment and the value of the stability of the law. The original idealism is also a constitutional interpretation theory which conforms to the purpose of democracy and the rule of law in the framework of constitutional government. Its limitations lie in overemphasizing the certainty of the law, losing the flexibility of the interpretation of the constitution, ignoring the subjective value judgment of the interpreter, the social reality, the influence of the traditional law making tradition on the constitutional verdict. The essence of the contention of non original meaning lies in the relationship between restriction and future democracy, the relationship between the objectivity and creativity of the constitution, the relationship between the stability of the Constitution and the adaptability of the constitution. No explanation theory can explain the interpretation practice of the court alone, and the interpretation of the court has not followed any explanation theory. In the process of the interpretation of the constitution, we should not only follow the text of the constitution, the intention of the constitution maker, the constitutional precedent, the history of the constitution, the reasonable demand of the social reality, the public policy and the moral ethics, and realize the fusion of the objectivity and creativity of the constitutional interpretation, which not only maintains the authority and stability of the constitutional text, but also makes the constitution keep pace with the times, Adapt to changing social needs.

【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D971.2;DD911

【引证文献】