法理学能回答宪法的性质吗?——与陈景辉教授商榷

Can the Jurisprudence Answer the Question of the Nature of Constitution?A Reply to Professor Chen Jinghui

宪法性质问题不能借助初级与次级规则、一阶与二阶共识等法理学理论工具来回答,否则构成范畴错误。即便就意义本身而言,宪法也不是次级规则与二阶共识。概念分析的法理学方法着重对普遍意义的法律抽象出普遍的意义,但不能提供任何实质的规范立场或经验知识,囿于其“自明之理”的方法论难以识别具体宪法承载的不同任务与价值,也就无法回答特定的实定法语境下的宪法性质问题。不同于最高法强调所涉法律的效力位阶与优先适用状况,根本法强调宪法是其他部门法规范的创制、生效、实施的前提条件,以及在内容、意义与价值上是塑造整个法体系的结构图。在这一意义上,美国宪法主要是最高法,而中国与德国的宪法更多是根本法进而是整个国家法体系的法律总则或总章程。抽象分析概念问题还是具体讨论教义学问题,明确的方法论自觉是法理学与宪法学准确对话的必要条件。

Whether the constitution is the general part of law cannot be answered by theoretical tools of jurisprudence such as primary and secondary rules,consensus of first and second orders,otherwise it will constitute a category error.Even as far as the content itself is concerned,the constitution is not a secondary rule or a second-order consensus.The jurisprudence method of conceptual analysis focuses on abstracting the universal meaning of the law in a universal way,but cannot provide any substantive normative position or empirical knowledge.Because of its“Truisms”methodology,it is difficult to identify the different tasks and values carried by the specific constitutions,and it is unfeasible to find the possibility that some constitutions have the status of the general part of law under some specific legal systems.Unlike the Supreme Law,which specifically refers to the level of effectiveness and priority of the relevant laws,the Basic Law emphasises that the constitution is the precondition for the creation,entry into force,and implementation of laws and regulations in other sectors,and it shapes the entire legal system in terms of content,meaning and value as the structure diagram.In this sense,the U.S.Constitution is the supreme law,while the Chinese and German constitutions can be categorised as the basic law and be part of the entire national legal system.To analysis the conceptual issues in an abstract way or specific discussion of dogmatic issues,a clear methodological consciousness shall be a pre-condition for an accurate dialogue between jurisprudence and constitution scholars.