浅析美国最高法院宪法裁决中的平衡解释模式——由“赫勒案”谈起

Brief Analysis on the Balancing in the Decisions of the Federal Supreme Court—To Begin With the Discussion on District of Columbia v.Heller

平衡是美国联邦最高法院一直所采用的一种解释模式。这一解释模式大体经历了三个时期:早期平衡的司法实践;20世纪初平衡理论的形成;1937年后平衡解释模式的勃兴。平衡解释已经大量运用于宪法商业条款、第一修正案、第十四修正案和隐私权等相关宪法诉讼中,成为法律实用主义的重要组成部分,是宪法非原旨论解释模式的重要代表,是诠释"活的宪法"的重要理论工具。在2008年的"赫勒案"的异议中,大法官布雷耶再次使用了利益平衡的分析方法,将其进一步扩大到宪法第二修正案领域。

When interpreting the constitution,balancing has been always used by the Supreme Court.Interests-balancing is used in Breyer's dissenting opinion in District of Columbia v.Heller,which displays adequately contemporary balancing.Balancing in the Supreme Court has undergone the process of development:the early stage of judicial practice;the formation of the theory of balancing in the campaign of legal progressivism and anti-formalism;the rising of balancing when balancing test was used in the cases associated with the First Amendment after 1937.Currently,balancing has been used in the cases concerning Commerce Clause,the First Amendment,the Fourteenth Amendment and privacy and so on,which becomes important part of legal pragmatism,one of non-originalism interpretations and the main approach of reading the 'evolving constitution'.