宗教视野下的美国宪法解释——评巴尔金的《活原旨主义》
丁晓东; 1:中国人民大学法学院 摘要(Abstract)：

<正>在解释美国宪法时,原旨主义(originalism)和活宪法主义(living constitutionalism)历来被认为是截然相反的两种理论。原旨主义,不论其探寻的是宪法起草者的原意,批准宪法的人民的原意,还是宪法文本的原意,都是一种向后看的视角。原旨主义认为,除非经过宪法第5条款所要求的正式修宪程序的修订,无论是总统、国会还是法院都必须受到宪法原意的约束,都不得改变宪法的原意。就像汉密尔顿

关键词(KeyWords)：

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation):

作者(Author): 丁晓东;

Email:


参考文献(References)： [1]赵晓力:“以共和反对民主:《联邦论》解读”,载《清华法学》2010年第6期。[2][英]托马斯·霍布斯:《利维坦》,黎思复、黎廷壁译,商务印书馆1982年版。[3]丁晓东:“自然法抑或实证法?——理性与意志视野下的美国宪法”,载《法制与社会发展》2012年第1期。[4]丁晓东:“法律能规制紧急状态吗?——美国行政权扩张与自由主义法学的病理”,载《华东政法大学学报》2014年第3期。1 The Federalist Papers,George W.Carey,James McC lellan,eds.,Indianapolis:Liberty Fund,p.268,406(2001).2 McC ulloch v.Maryland,17 U.S.316(1819).3关于死人意志(dead hand)问题的讨论,参见Adam Samaha,Dead Hand Arguments and Constitutional Interpretation,108 Colum.L.Rev.606(2008).4 Jack M.Balkin,Living Originalism,Cambridge,Mass.:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,p.20(2011).1本书的中文版已经由厦门大学的刘连泰教授译出,参见杰克·巴尔金著,刘连泰译:《活的原旨主义》,厦门大学出版社2014年版。2Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 6.3参见http://www.law.yale.edu/intellectuallife/constinterp12_agenda.htm.4Harvard Law Review,Yale Law Journal,Stanford Law Review,Duke Law Review等顶尖法律期刊都对此书进行了评论,而Boston University Law Review、The University of Illinois Law Review等期刊则更是组织了专题讨论。5Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,p.21.6Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,p.3.1美国宪法第1条第3款。2Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,p.43.3Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,p.13.4Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,pp.138-182.5Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,pp.183-219.6Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,pp.220-255.1Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,p.36.2John O.McG innis&Michael Rappaport,Original Interpretive Principles as the Core of Originalism,24 Constitutional Commentary 371(2007),p.372,380.3Antonin Scalia,Common Law Courts in a Civil Law System:The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws,in A Matter of Interpretation:Federal Courts and the Law,Amy Gutmann ed.,Princeton:Princeton University Press,p.40(1997).1Scott J.Shapiro,Legality,Cambridge,Mass.:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,2011.2Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,p.20.3Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,pp.60-61.4参见Jack Balkin,Constitutional Redemption:Political Faith in an Unjust World,Cambridge,Mass:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,2011.5John Austin,The Province of Jurisprudence Determined,W.Rumble(ed.),Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995,(first published,1832).6Morton Horwitz,The Warren Court and the Pursuit of Justice,New York:Hill and Wang,1998.7Vincent Blasi,The Burger Court:the counter-revolution that wasn’t(3rd ed.),New Haven:Yale University Press,1983.8Robert Post&Reva Siegel,The Right’s Living Constitution,75 Fordahm L.Rev.545(2006).9William Rehnquist,The Notion of a Living Constitution,54 Tex.L.Rev.693(1976).1Raoul Berger,Government by Judiciary:The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment,Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1977.2General Edwin Meese III,Address before the American Bar Association(July 9,1985),in The Great Debate:Interpreting Our Written Constitution 9,Paul G.Cassel ed.,Washington D.C.The Federalist Society,1986.3Robert Bork,The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law,New York:The Free Press,1990;A Matter of Interpretation:Federal Courts and the Law,Amy Gutmann ed.,Princeton:Princeton University Press,p.40(1997).4http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/us/politics/07constitution.html.5Paul Brest,The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding,60 B.U.L.Rev.204(1980).6参见H.Jefferson Powell,The Original Understanding of Original Intent,98 Harv.L.Rev.885(1985),pp.887-888.7Antonin Scalia,Address Before the Attorney General’s Conference on Economic Liberties(June 14,1986),in Original Meaning Jurisprudence:A Sourcebook,Office of Legal Policy,(U.S.Department of Justice),p.101(1987);Office of Legal Policy,U.S.Department of Justice,Guidelines on Constitutional Litigation,(U.S.Department of Justice),pp.3-6(1988).8例如德沃金,Ronald Dworkin,Freedom’s Law:The Moral Reading of the Constitution,Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,pp.291-292.9例如兰迪·博南特,Randy Barnett,An Originalist for Nonoriginalists,45 Loy.L Rev.611(1999).Caleb Nelson,Originalism and Interpretive Conventions,70 U.Chi.L.Rev.519(2003)1Robert Bork,The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law,New York:The Free Press,1990.2最近,个别保守派学者开始重新为新政之前的宪政实践辩护,但布朗案基本上已经盖棺定论,无人质疑。David E.Bernstein,Rehabilitating Lochner:Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform,Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2011.3因此,当今主流的保守派原旨主义可以说是“新政/布朗原旨主义(New Deal/Brown originalism)”Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,p.117.4A Matter of Interpretation:Federal Courts and the Law,Amy Gutmann ed.,Princeton,N.J.:Princeton.University Press,p.140(1997).5Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,p.104.6David Strauss,The Living Constitution,Oxford:Oxford University Press 2010.7Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,p.299.8Andrew Koppelman,Why Jack Balkin Is Disgusting,27 Const.Comment.177.(2010).1Matthew Franck,Jumping to Conclusions,National Review Online,Aug.18,2007.http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/51392/jumping-conclusions/matthew-j-franck.2参见Ronald Dworkin,Law’s Empire.Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1986.3列文森教授显然是这一政治原则最强烈的反对者之一,参见Sanford Levinson,Our Undemocratic Constitution:Where the Constitution Goes Wrong(And How We the People Can Correct It),New.York,Oxford University,2006.4对于宪法和忠诚之间的关系,列文森教授有非常精彩的讨论,参见Sanford Levinson,Constitutional Faith,Princeton:Princeton University Press,1988.5The Federalist Papers,George W.Carey,James McC lellan,eds.,Indianapolis:Liberty Fund,pp.319-324(2001).6Dred Scott v.Sandford,60 U.S.393(1857).1这里我们似乎可以重新思考卡尔·施密特著名的断言,施密特曾指出:“例外比规则更加有趣:规则什么也证明不了,而例外证明了所有东西:例外不仅仅确认了规则,而且确认了规则的存在;规则的存在只能从例外中得出”。但如果以这里分析的角度,却可以发现例外和规则并非一对对立的概念:规则中隐藏着例外,而例外中也隐藏着规则。无论是遵循规则还是例外都取决于人的决断。参见Carl Schmitt,Political Theology:Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty,trans.George Schwab,Cambridge:MIT Press,1985,122其创立的网站“巴尔金化(Balkinization)”一直是自由派法学在网络上的最大阵地。参见http://balkin.blogspot.com.3Jack Balkin,Constitutional Redemption:Political Faith in an Unjust World,Cambridge,Mass:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,2011,chapter 7.4Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,p.9.5这是列文森教授在2011年耶鲁法学院秋季宪法课堂上的感叹。这一美国宪政的人类学研究进路其实早已经为其他学者所提倡,Paul Kahn,The Cultural Study of Law:Reconstructing Legal Scholarship.University of Chicago Press,1999.6Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,p.81.7Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,p.75.8Jack M.Balkin,Supra note 5,p.81.9Arthur O.Lovejoy,The Great Chain of Being:A Study of the History of an Idea,Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1936.1Carl Schmitt.Constitutional Theory,Jeffrey Seitzer trans,Durham:Duke University Press,2008.2Paul Kahn,Political Theology:Four New Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty,New York:Columbia University Press,p.125.3Alexander Bickel,The Least Dangerous Branch:The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics,Bobbs-Merrill,1962;John Hart Ely,Democracy and Distrust:A Theory of Judicial Review,Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,1980;Bruce Ackerman,We the People:Foundations,Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,1990;Ronald Dworkin,Taking Rights Seriously,Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,1977.4Paul Kahn,Political Theology:Four New Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty,New York:Columbia University Press,p.13.1 Giorgio Agamben,Profanations,Jeff Fort trans,New York:Zone Books,2007.