宪法上的正当法律程序:“三一集团诉奥巴马案”评析

Due Process of Law in Constitution:Comment on SANY Group.v.Obama

正当法律程序规定在美国宪法第5和第14修正案之中,是美国宪法和法律在实施运行中经常提及的一个术语,但宪法本身却未明确其定义。经过法院几个世纪以判例形式的解释,现正当法律程序有两个层面的涵义,即程序性正当程序和实体性正当程序。前者指当事人的权利受到限制或者剥夺时应当受到正当程序的保护,如有权被告知理由、提出要求或者辩护等;后者指任何人的生命、自由和财产的权利不应被专横剥夺。在"三一集团诉奥巴马案"中,哥伦比亚特区联邦上诉法院最终裁决总统令未经正当程序剥夺了Ralls Crop.受宪法保护的财产权,意味着总统令在法律意义上已经失效,从而重申了正当法律程序对公民宪法权利保护的理念。

Due Process of Law is stipulated in the amendment to the Constitution Article 5 and 14. As a legal terminology often mentioned in the Constitution and operation of the law, the defini- tion of Due Process of Law is not clearly regulated in the Constitution. During the courts＇ explantion using prejudication for centuries, Due Process of Law has formed two meanings, namely procedural due process and substantive due process. The fomer is that parties should be protected by the proce- dural due process when their rights （ including being given notice for the case, making claims and defending, etc. ） art restricted or deprived ; the latter is that anyone＇s rights of life, liberty and prop- erty should not be arbitrarily deprived. In SANY Group. v. Obama, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has concluded that the Presidential Order deprives Rails of its in- terests without due process of law, which means the Presidential Order failures in a legal sense. And, the legal thought that Due Process of Law proctects constitutional rights of citizen is reiterated.