美國憲法解釋的創(chuàng)造性研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-31 15:40
【摘要】： 在美國,關(guān)于憲法解釋方法的爭論焦點在于：當(dāng)憲法條文出現(xiàn)空缺與漏洞、無規(guī)則可循時,作為憲法解釋者該如何選擇?一種觀點認(rèn)為,法官應(yīng)克己遵循制憲者意圖或文本含義,不得越司法權(quán)之雷池一步。另一種觀點則認(rèn)為,憲法的生命在于經(jīng)驗而不是邏輯,憲法的現(xiàn)實性價值要求法官在面對憲法漏洞時,應(yīng)積極發(fā)揮主觀能動性,發(fā)揮憲法解釋過程中的創(chuàng)造性作用。所謂“憲法解釋的創(chuàng)造性”是指當(dāng)法官在司法過程中遭遇疑難案件時所采取的一種在大部分情況下表現(xiàn)為以司法自由主義為核心的司法能動主義傾向。它與美國司法哲學(xué)中的司法自由主義和司法能動主義既有聯(lián)系又有區(qū)別。憲法解釋的創(chuàng)造性依據(jù)與司法自由主義路徑一致,均是對時代脈搏的洞察與實施；而憲法解釋的創(chuàng)造性結(jié)果則并非表現(xiàn)為司法能動,司法克制——法院尊重立法的情形也時有發(fā)生。憲法解釋的創(chuàng)造性發(fā)揮使得法官在司法裁判中得以采取一種靈活的方式、秉承一定的法律價值、遵循一定的法律原則理性地作出判斷,不斷推動社會政治、經(jīng)濟、法律、文化的變革和發(fā)展。 美國最高法院的審判歷史表明,在美國,憲法解釋創(chuàng)造性發(fā)展的黃金時間分別為馬歇爾法院時期和沃倫法院時期。馬歇爾主導(dǎo)下聯(lián)邦最高法院司法審查權(quán)的確立以及聯(lián)邦權(quán)力至上性的維護,沃倫法院對種族隔離制度的瓦解、對議席分配不公的矯正以及對刑事被告人權(quán)利的保護都是制憲原意與憲法文本所始料不及的,均是美國最高法院大法官踐行憲法解釋創(chuàng)造性的不爭事實,而其結(jié)果則是順應(yīng)了時代發(fā)展,滿足了社會需求。 憲法解釋的創(chuàng)造性有其存在的合理性基礎(chǔ),哲學(xué)詮釋學(xué)第一次使法官能夠?qū)⒗硇缘淖杂X與憲法文本和社會現(xiàn)實加以融合,使自由主義和現(xiàn)實主義精神彌漫了整個憲法解釋的過程：憲法文本、制憲原意的解釋方法所固有的缺陷亦是憲法解釋創(chuàng)造性的價值與意義所在。雖然關(guān)于憲法解釋創(chuàng)造性的反民主聲音未曾間斷,但其辯護者的有力論證也為其在一定程度上扳回了局勢,加之衡量模式在憲法解釋創(chuàng)造性過程中的選擇適用,使得憲法解釋的創(chuàng)造性之路對于美國大法官而言雖然頗有爭議,但卻無可取代。
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D971.2;DD911
本文編號：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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D971.2;DD911
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 朱蘇力;制度是如何形成的?——關(guān)于馬歇爾訴麥迪遜案的故事[J];比較法研究;1998年01期
2 田雷;;當(dāng)司法審查遭遇“反多數(shù)難題”[J];博覽群書;2007年02期
3 劉國;;憲法解釋的衡量模式——兼論憲法解釋方法的變革[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2006年02期
4 韓大元,張翔;試論憲法解釋的客觀性與主觀性[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;1999年06期
5 石世峰;;論憲法比較解釋[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2006年02期
6 任東來;改變美國憲政歷史的一個腳注[J];讀書;2005年09期
7 中野目善則;金玄武;;憲法解釋方法[J];法律方法;2002年00期
8 李秀群;;司法過程中的利益衡量[J];法律方法;2003年00期
9 田成有;;重構(gòu)還是超越:法律解釋的客觀性探詢——以德沃金和波斯納的法律解釋論為主[J];法律方法;2003年00期
10 李輝;;司法能動主義與司法克制主義的比較分析[J];法律方法;2009年00期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 侯學(xué)賓;憲法解釋中原旨主義的內(nèi)在困境[D];吉林大學(xué);2006年
，本文編號：2215433
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/fashilw/2215433.html
