紧急时期的美国宪法解释

Constitutional Interpretation During Emergencies in U.S.A.

美国宪法没有紧急状态条款,在南北内战、一战、二战、反恐战争等紧急时期美国总统往往行使"超宪法权限"侵涉公民基本权利,为保证危机中宪法依然有效,作为制衡者的法院需要比常态下对宪法进行更加审慎的解释。然而,美国联邦最高法院的大法官们摒弃了遵循先例的普通法传统,自由裁量着政府紧急权力与公民权利冲突涉及的诸多敏感宪法争议,但其所表现出来的实用主义政治立场变换和紧急法制观的保守化转型,揭示了非常时期宪法解释的核心问题:要自由的宪法还是安全的宪法。

There is no emergency clause enacted by U.S.Constitution.During the state of emergency,such as Civil War,World War I II,War on Terror etc.,the president always executed the ＂super-constitutional powers＂ which interfered the civil rights.For guaranteeing the validity of Constitution in time of crisis,Court should interpret the Constitution more seriously than in the normal time.However,the justices of U.S.Supreme Court abandon the stare decisis common law tradition,deliberately discrete many sensitive constitutional issues between government emergency powers and civil rights.But through the fact that Supreme Court shows the pragmatism political shift and conservative transformation of the emergency law conception,it reflects the core problem on the constitutional interpretation during the emergencies,which is we want liberal constitution or secure constitution.