本文選題：美國憲法 + 聯(lián)邦黨人　； 參考：《安徽大學》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 美國憲法制定后并沒有立即生效,因為按照1787年9月17日的制憲會議的相關(guān)決議,新憲法只有被至少九個州批準后方能生效。但是美國人民并不是非常認同這部新憲法,分歧比較大。支持新憲法的一方被稱為聯(lián)邦黨人,他們極力夸大新憲法的各種好處,認為新憲法就是將美國引向強大的燈塔,希望美國人民能盡快批準通過新憲法；反對新憲法的一方被稱為反聯(lián)邦黨人,他們極力貶低新憲法,認為新憲法就是衰亡的源頭,如果憲法被批準通過,那么美國就將重蹈被壓迫、被剝削的覆轍。 圍繞憲法的批準與否的問題,聯(lián)邦黨人與反聯(lián)邦黨人展開了激烈的爭論,各自試圖說服美國人民來達到各自的目的。經(jīng)筆者研究發(fā)現(xiàn),兩黨論戰(zhàn)的焦點主要集中在四個方面,分別是憲法的合法性之爭、聯(lián)邦共和的國體之爭、聯(lián)邦政府的權(quán)力建構(gòu)之爭和權(quán)利法案之爭,這四個方面也依次成為本文的前面四大部分,加之后面一部分筆者自己的一點感受,本論文共有五大部分。 第一部分,憲法的合法性之爭。爭論的焦點主要是新憲法的制定是否符合法律的規(guī)定。聯(lián)邦黨人認為新憲法的制定是符合安納波利斯會議通過的決議精神的,也是符合邦聯(lián)條款的精神的,也就是說新憲法是合法的；但反聯(lián)邦黨人認為按照安納波利斯的決議,1787年2月21日的制憲會議的決議,以及《邦聯(lián)條款》的規(guī)定,制憲會議根本就沒有權(quán)力來制定憲法,他們享有的只是“修改權(quán)”而已,所以新憲法完全是違法的。 第二部分,聯(lián)邦共和之爭。爭論的焦點較多,主要集中在三個方面,分別是：(1)聯(lián)邦與邦聯(lián),(2)聯(lián)邦與共和,(3)聯(lián)邦與各州。聯(lián)邦黨人認為邦聯(lián)制已經(jīng)過時,應該建立全新的聯(lián)邦制國家,且認為在美國這樣幅員遼闊的國家是可以做到聯(lián)邦制和共和制的融合,在這個聯(lián)邦制國家中,聯(lián)邦權(quán)力要處于絕對的主導地位,州權(quán)只能處于附屬的地位；反聯(lián)邦黨人認為邦聯(lián)制是世界上最好的政府形式,不應該將其拋棄,況且在美國這樣一個地域廣大的國家是難以做到聯(lián)邦制和共和制的兼容,就算真的建立起聯(lián)邦制的國家,州權(quán)力要優(yōu)于聯(lián)邦權(quán)力。 第三部分,聯(lián)邦政府之爭。爭論的焦點較多,主要集中在三個方面,分別是：(1)國會之爭,(2)總統(tǒng)之爭,(3)法院之爭。本部分的爭論最為復雜,但集中在“三權(quán)分立”的具體制度設(shè)計上。 第四部分,權(quán)利法案之爭。聯(lián)邦黨人認為再在憲法中加入權(quán)利法案是多余的,根本就沒有必要,也不應該有這樣的規(guī)定；反聯(lián)邦黨人堅持認為在憲法中必須要有權(quán)利法案,這樣可以從憲法的高度上保障個人權(quán)利免遭侵犯。 第五部分,聯(lián)邦黨人與反聯(lián)邦黨人圍繞憲法問題展開了激烈的爭論,共同制定、通過及宣傳了新憲法。在這基礎(chǔ)之上,美國人民建立起飲譽世界的憲政制度,讓美國不斷地變得強大,終成為一超級大國,傲立于世界的西方。更加難能可貴的是,在這一制度之下,美國真正地做到了國家的強大與人民的幸福的高度統(tǒng)一�？梢哉f,如果沒有這樣的憲法,沒有這樣的憲政制度,美國是很難取得這樣的豐功偉績。其可借鑒之處實是太多。但筆者堅信,最值得的借鑒之處不是制度的本身,而是建構(gòu)制度的方法。圍繞憲法,聯(lián)邦黨人與反聯(lián)邦黨人所表現(xiàn)出來的妥協(xié)精神和對抗精神最有借鑒的價值,因為只有擁有了這兩項基本精神,才有可能建構(gòu)起發(fā)達的憲政制度,然后才有可能和諧發(fā)展下去。 通過研究,我們比較清楚地了解當時針對憲法的批準所展開的爭論,通過對這些爭論的分析,我們不難發(fā)現(xiàn)無論是聯(lián)邦黨人,還是反聯(lián)邦黨人他們都有愛國之心,也都有利己之心,不是那么偉大,也不是那么渺小。共同的愛國之心可以產(chǎn)生妥協(xié)的力量,共同愛國之心的不同的表達方式可以產(chǎn)生對抗的力量。在憲政制度的建立過程中,需要妥協(xié)和對抗兩種力量,妥協(xié)的力量可以保證制度本身得到正面的支持,對抗的力量可以發(fā)現(xiàn)制度本身的缺陷,為制度本身的完善提供一重要前提條件。所以說,在妥協(xié)與對抗的共同作用之下,美國人民制定并通過了偉大的憲法,建立起偉大的憲政制度,讓國家強大,讓人民幸福。
[Abstract]:The constitution of the United States did not come into effect immediately, because the new constitution was approved only by at least nine states in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the September 17, 1787 constitutional convention. But the people of the United States did not agree with the new constitution very much. One party supporting the new constitution was called the Federal Party, and they exaggerated the new constitution. The advantages of the law are that the new constitution is to lead the United States to a powerful lighthouse and hope that the American people can ratify the new constitution as soon as possible; one party against the new constitution is called the anti Federal Party. They are trying to degrade the new constitution and think that the new constitution is the source of decay. If the constitution is approved, then the United States will repeat the oppression, The course of being exploited.
On the issue of the approval of the constitution, the Federalists and the anti Federalists have launched a fierce debate, each trying to persuade the American people to achieve their own purposes. The author's research finds that the focus of the two party debate is mainly in four aspects: the legitimacy of the constitution, the Federal Republic's state dispute, and the power of the federal government. The struggle between the force construction and the bill of rights, these four aspects also become the first four parts of this article, and the latter part of the author's own feeling, there are five parts of this paper.
The first part is the debate on the legitimacy of the constitution. The focus of the debate is whether the formulation of the new constitution is in accordance with the legal provisions. The Federalists believe that the formulation of the new constitution is in accordance with the spirit of the resolution adopted by the Annapolis conference and the spirit of the Confederacy clause, that is, the new constitution is legal; but the anti Federalists believe that the new constitution is legal According to Annapolis's resolution, the resolution of the constitutional convention in February 21, 1787, and the provisions of the Confederacy clause, the constituent assembly has no power to make the constitution, and they enjoy only "the right to amend", so the new constitution is completely illegal.
The second part, the debate on the Federal Republic is the focus of the debate, mainly in three aspects: (1) federal and Confederation, (2) federal and Republic, (3) federal and state. The Federalists believe that the Confederation system is out of date, a new federal state should be established, and that a vast country such as the United States can be a federal system. In the Union state, in this federal state, the federal power is in an absolute dominant position and the state power can only be attached. The anti Federalists believe that the Confederation is the best form of government in the world, and it should not be abandoned. Moreover, it is difficult to achieve federalism and republics in a vast territory of the United States. Compatibility, even if a federal state is really established, state power is superior to federal power.
The third part, the debate on the federal government has more focus, mainly in three aspects: (1) the controversy of Congress, (2) the presidential contention, (3) the dispute of the court. The argument in this part is the most complicated, but it concentrates on the specific system design of "the separation of the three powers".
The fourth part, the dispute of the bill of rights. The Federal Party thinks it is unnecessary to add the bill of rights to the constitution. It is not necessary, nor should there be such a provision; the anti Federalists insist that there must be a bill of rights in the constitution so that the rights of the individual can be protected from the violation of the constitution.
In the fifth part, the Federalists and the anti Federalists launched a fierce debate around the constitution, and jointly formulated, passed and propagated the new constitution. On this basis, the American people established a constitutional system for the world, making the United States become a superpower, the west of the world. It is, under this system, that the United States has truly achieved the great unity of the state and the happiness of the people. It can be said that, without such a constitution, and without such a constitutional system, it is difficult for the United States to achieve such a great achievement. Body, but the method of constructing the system, the most valuable reference value for the spirit of compromise and the antagonism expressed by the constitution, the Federalists and the anti Federalists, because only with these two basic spirits can it be possible to construct a developed constitutional system and then be able to develop in a harmonious way.
Through the study, we have a clear understanding of the debate on the approval of the constitution at that time. Through the analysis of these arguments, it is not difficult to find that both the Federalists and the anti Federalists all have patriotism, and they all have the heart of self interest, not so great, nor so small. The common patriotism can be produced. The power of compromise and the different expressions of the common patriotism can produce the strength of confrontation. In the process of establishing the constitutional system, we need to compromise and oppose two kinds of forces. The power of compromise can guarantee the positive support of the system itself. The strength of the confrontation can find the defects of the system itself and provide the perfection of the system itself. Important prerequisites. So, under the common effect of compromise and confrontation, the American people have made and passed the great constitution and established a great constitutional system to make the country strong and make the people happy.
【學位授予單位】：安徽大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D971.2;DD911

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 潘華仿;略論美國憲法的聯(lián)邦主義原則和法律體系[J];比較法研究;1994年Z1期

2 強昌文,馬新福;我們需要什么樣的憲法觀?[J];長白學刊;2005年02期

3 陳秋云;美國憲政思想對近代中國憲政的影響述評[J];法商研究;2005年02期

4 褚樂平;《聯(lián)邦黨人文集》思想探源[J];江西社會科學;2003年02期

5 任東來;美國憲法的英國普通法傳統(tǒng)[J];美國研究;2002年04期

6 褚樂平;《美國憲法》批準史探[J];美國研究;2003年01期

7 任東來;美國憲法的形成:一個歷史的考察[J];社會科學論壇;2004年12期

8 賴建華;;憲政·民主·美德——《聯(lián)邦黨人文集》的“共和”概念[J];中山大學研究生學刊(社會科學版);2002年03期

9 宋臘梅;;麥迪遜的政黨思想與實踐[J];中央社會主義學院學報;2007年06期

相關(guān)博士學位論文 前1條

1 馮松濤;政治哲學視野中的政體[D];中共中央黨校;2007年

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前7條

1 謝運生;美國立憲的政治經(jīng)濟背景分析[D];吉林大學;2005年

2 鄧超才;論漢密爾頓的憲政思想[D];安徽大學;2006年

3 王通文;西方共和主義的混合政體思想[D];廈門大學;2006年

4 李欣;麥迪遜聯(lián)邦制思想研究[D];華東師范大學;2007年

5 史娜;孟德斯鳩政體思想述評[D];吉林大學;2007年

6 張丹丹;論美國憲法的平衡原則[D];中國政法大學;2007年

7 馬明玉;美國憲法中公民權(quán)利條款變遷的歷史考察[D];湘潭大學;2008年

，

本文編號：1970769