美国宪法解释的创造性研究
发布时间：2018-08-31 15:40
【摘要】： 在美国,关于宪法解释方法的争论焦点在于：当宪法条文出现空缺与漏洞、无规则可循时,作为宪法解释者该如何选择?一种观点认为,法官应克己遵循制宪者意图或文本含义,不得越司法权之雷池一步。另一种观点则认为,宪法的生命在于经验而不是逻辑,宪法的现实性价值要求法官在面对宪法漏洞时,应积极发挥主观能动性,发挥宪法解释过程中的创造性作用。所谓“宪法解释的创造性”是指当法官在司法过程中遭遇疑难案件时所采取的一种在大部分情况下表现为以司法自由主义为核心的司法能动主义倾向。它与美国司法哲学中的司法自由主义和司法能动主义既有联系又有区别。宪法解释的创造性依据与司法自由主义路径一致,均是对时代脉搏的洞察与实施；而宪法解释的创造性结果则并非表现为司法能动,司法克制——法院尊重立法的情形也时有发生。宪法解释的创造性发挥使得法官在司法裁判中得以采取一种灵活的方式、秉承一定的法律价值、遵循一定的法律原则理性地作出判断,不断推动社会政治、经济、法律、文化的变革和发展。 美国最高法院的审判历史表明,在美国,宪法解释创造性发展的黄金时间分别为马歇尔法院时期和沃伦法院时期。马歇尔主导下联邦最高法院司法审查权的确立以及联邦权力至上性的维护,沃伦法院对种族隔离制度的瓦解、对议席分配不公的矫正以及对刑事被告人权利的保护都是制宪原意与宪法文本所始料不及的,均是美国最高法院大法官践行宪法解释创造性的不争事实,而其结果则是顺应了时代发展,满足了社会需求。 宪法解释的创造性有其存在的合理性基础,哲学诠释学第一次使法官能够将理性的自觉与宪法文本和社会现实加以融合,使自由主义和现实主义精神弥漫了整个宪法解释的过程：宪法文本、制宪原意的解释方法所固有的缺陷亦是宪法解释创造性的价值与意义所在。虽然关于宪法解释创造性的反民主声音未曾间断,但其辩护者的有力论证也为其在一定程度上扳回了局势,加之衡量模式在宪法解释创造性过程中的选择适用,使得宪法解释的创造性之路对于美国大法官而言虽然颇有争议,但却无可取代。
[Abstract]:In the United States, the focus of the debate on the method of constitutional interpretation is: when there are gaps and loopholes in constitutional provisions and there are no rules to follow, how to choose as a constitutional interpreter? According to one view, judges should follow the constitutor's intention or textual meaning and should not go beyond judicial power. The other point of view is that the life of constitution lies in experience rather than logic, and the realistic value of constitution requires judges to actively exert their subjective initiative and play the creative role in the process of constitutional interpretation in the face of constitutional loopholes. The so-called "creativity of constitutional interpretation" refers to the judicial activism that judges adopt when they encounter difficult cases in the course of judicature, which is manifested in most cases as judicial liberalism as the core. It is different from judicial liberalism and judicial activism in American judicial philosophy. The creative basis of the constitutional interpretation is consistent with the path of judicial liberalism, and it is the insight and implementation of the pulse of the times, while the creative result of the constitutional interpretation is not the judicial initiative. Judicial restraint-Court respect for legislation also occurs from time to time. The creative exertion of constitutional interpretation enables judges to adopt a flexible way in the administration of justice, uphold certain legal values, make rational judgments in accordance with certain legal principles, and constantly promote social politics, economy, and law. Cultural change and development The trial history of the United States Supreme Court shows that the prime time for the creative development of constitutional interpretation in the United States is the Marshall Court period and the Warren Court period respectively. Marshall led the establishment of judicial review power of the Supreme Court and the preservation of the supremacy of federal power, and the disintegration of the apartheid system by the Warren Court. The correction of the unfair distribution of seats and the protection of the rights of the criminal defendants are all the indisputable facts of the creative interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court justices of the United States, which were unexpected from the original intent of the Constitution and the text of the Constitution. The result is to comply with the development of the times, to meet the needs of society. For the first time, philosophical hermeneutics enables judges to integrate rational consciousness with constitutional texts and social realities. The spirit of liberalism and realism pervades the whole process of constitutional interpretation: the inherent defects of the constitutional text and the interpretation method of constitutional intent are also the creative value and significance of constitutional interpretation. Although anti-democratic voices about the creativity of constitutional interpretation have not been interrupted, the strong arguments of their defenders have also brought back the situation to a certain extent, and the choice of the measurement model in the creative process of constitutional interpretation has been applied. The creative approach to constitutional interpretation, though controversial for American justices, is irreplaceable.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D971.2;DD911
本文编号：2215433
[Abstract]:In the United States, the focus of the debate on the method of constitutional interpretation is: when there are gaps and loopholes in constitutional provisions and there are no rules to follow, how to choose as a constitutional interpreter? According to one view, judges should follow the constitutor's intention or textual meaning and should not go beyond judicial power. The other point of view is that the life of constitution lies in experience rather than logic, and the realistic value of constitution requires judges to actively exert their subjective initiative and play the creative role in the process of constitutional interpretation in the face of constitutional loopholes. The so-called "creativity of constitutional interpretation" refers to the judicial activism that judges adopt when they encounter difficult cases in the course of judicature, which is manifested in most cases as judicial liberalism as the core. It is different from judicial liberalism and judicial activism in American judicial philosophy. The creative basis of the constitutional interpretation is consistent with the path of judicial liberalism, and it is the insight and implementation of the pulse of the times, while the creative result of the constitutional interpretation is not the judicial initiative. Judicial restraint-Court respect for legislation also occurs from time to time. The creative exertion of constitutional interpretation enables judges to adopt a flexible way in the administration of justice, uphold certain legal values, make rational judgments in accordance with certain legal principles, and constantly promote social politics, economy, and law. Cultural change and development The trial history of the United States Supreme Court shows that the prime time for the creative development of constitutional interpretation in the United States is the Marshall Court period and the Warren Court period respectively. Marshall led the establishment of judicial review power of the Supreme Court and the preservation of the supremacy of federal power, and the disintegration of the apartheid system by the Warren Court. The correction of the unfair distribution of seats and the protection of the rights of the criminal defendants are all the indisputable facts of the creative interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court justices of the United States, which were unexpected from the original intent of the Constitution and the text of the Constitution. The result is to comply with the development of the times, to meet the needs of society. For the first time, philosophical hermeneutics enables judges to integrate rational consciousness with constitutional texts and social realities. The spirit of liberalism and realism pervades the whole process of constitutional interpretation: the inherent defects of the constitutional text and the interpretation method of constitutional intent are also the creative value and significance of constitutional interpretation. Although anti-democratic voices about the creativity of constitutional interpretation have not been interrupted, the strong arguments of their defenders have also brought back the situation to a certain extent, and the choice of the measurement model in the creative process of constitutional interpretation has been applied. The creative approach to constitutional interpretation, though controversial for American justices, is irreplaceable.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D971.2;DD911
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 朱苏力;制度是如何形成的?——关于马歇尔诉麦迪逊案的故事[J];比较法研究;1998年01期
2 田雷;;当司法审查遭遇“反多数难题”[J];博览群书;2007年02期
3 刘国;;宪法解释的衡量模式——兼论宪法解释方法的变革[J];当代法学;2006年02期
4 韩大元,张翔;试论宪法解释的客观性与主观性[J];法律科学.西北政法学院学报;1999年06期
5 石世峰;;论宪法比较解释[J];法律科学.西北政法学院学报;2006年02期
6 任东来;改变美国宪政历史的一个脚注[J];读书;2005年09期
7 中野目善则;金玄武;;宪法解释方法[J];法律方法;2002年00期
8 李秀群;;司法过程中的利益衡量[J];法律方法;2003年00期
9 田成有;;重构还是超越:法律解释的客观性探询——以德沃金和波斯纳的法律解释论为主[J];法律方法;2003年00期
10 李辉;;司法能动主义与司法克制主义的比较分析[J];法律方法;2009年00期
相关硕士学位论文 前1条
1 侯学宾;宪法解释中原旨主义的内在困境[D];吉林大学;2006年
，本文编号：2215433
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/fashilw/2215433.html
