Originalism in American Constitutional Interpretation:Origin,Development,Reasons for Adoption and Limits

Nowadays in the United States of America,constitutional interpretation divides into two rival theories:originalism and living constitutionalism.Despite sustained criticism that has discredited originalists within certain comers of the legal academy,the originalism movement is a success by numerous measures.[1]There is always a necessity to do thorough research on the originalism theory playing a dominant role in American constitutional interpretation.In order to demonstrate the importance of adhering to original meaning of the Constitution as it is always done and ought to be done,this article is going to focus on the originalist aspects and discuss what originalism is,why constitutional interpreters need to be faithful to it and how to soberly treat it and improve it after discovering the limits of the theory.

Principles,Standards,and Applicability of Constitutional Interpretation of Basic Rights

Abstract:For departmental legal norms concerning citizens’basic rights,when multiple interpretations are possible based on indi-vidual case circumstances,interpreters representing public authority need to apply the method of constitutional interpretation to screen out the interpretation conclusions that do not violate the Constitution.This means selecting interpretations at the constitutional level that do not overly restrict citizens’basic rights and understanding the specific connotations of legal norms with the principle of“not infringing on citizens’basic rights.”The Constitution,as a framework order,does not require interpreters to choose the most constitutionally aligned interpretation among various constitutional interpretations.If a legal norm does not have a constitutional interpretation conclusion in an individual case circumstance,it indicates that the application of that norm in the case is unconstitutional,and the interpreter should avoid applying the legal norm in that case.Regarding judgment standards,interpreters should apply the principle of proportionality to deter-mine whether each legal interpretation conclusion concerning basic rights-related legal norms complies with the Constitution.Out of respect for the legislature,the application of the sub-principles of pro-portionality should consider the boundaries of interpretative actions.

On the Right to the Protection of Personal Data as a Constitutional Right

The right to the protection of personal data is an important human right in the era of big data and a constitutional right based on the national protection obligation and the theory of human dignity,making it of special significance for the realization of citizenship in a digital society.It can be seen from an examination of the constitutional texts of various countries in the world that the right to the protection of personal data as a constitutional right has rich normative connotations,and the key legal link to realize this right lies in the national legislature actively fulfilling its obligation to shape and specify the protection of personal data in accordance with the entrustment of the constitutional norms.Given the constitutional principles of fundamental rights protection,i.e.,realizing the constitutional status of the right to the protection of personal data as a basic right by means of institutional guarantees,the legislature should first adhere to the constitutionality principle of data protection legislation.Second,a multi-level data protection legal system centered on the right to the protection of personal data should be established.Finally,the institutional guarantee mechanism for the protection of personal data should be continuously improved through constitutional interpretation.

Constitutional Court Dysfunction as a Guardian of Constitutional Rights of Religious Minorities in Indonesia

Right to freedom of religion and belief guaranteed by the constitution in the positive legal order, in practice, does not necessarily guarantee freedom. The Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia provides a guarantee of religious freedom for every citizen under Article 28 E of the 1945 Constitution. The Constitutional Court, which is required to protect, maintain, and ensure religious freedom for religious minorities, is deemed to fail guarding the right of religious minorities, because in addition to providing a restrictive ruling on a judicial review of the rule of law which is contrary to the basic law, it also fails to interpret legal products under the laws as part of the constitution. The Constitutional Court dysfunction as a guardian of the constitutional rights of religious minorities occurs because of the vacuum of law （recht vacuum）, a narrow interpretation of the constitution by the constitutional judges. The urgency that needs to be addressed is to provide the Constitutional Court with a more extensive authority, which is not limited only to review legal products under laws, but also includes production of Law on Freedom of Religion and Belief for protection in the application of Article 28 E of the 1945 Constitution.

A Systemic Interpretation of Social Rights in the Chinese Constitution

Prescribed by the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, social rights provisions cannot be comprehended in isolation, nor can they be interpreted simply by referring to the concepts of positive rights or socio-economic rights in traditional constitutional theory. On the basis of the Constitution, social rights exhibit three interrelated dimensions from the perspective of systemic interpretation: promoting people's wellbeing, promoting democratic politics, and promoting citizens' participation in state-building. In the overall structure and normative intention of the Constitution of China, social rights are not only a kind of socioeconomic right, but also a fundamental right with a socialist nature. Specifically, social rights are individuals' right to claim their economic welfare from the state, as well as the basic civil right of realizing a comprehensive social identity. They have a social and economic nature, and to a certain degree a political nature. Correspondingly, the normative structure of social rights, and in particular their functions and orientation toward obligation, are constructed on the basis of this kind of nature. The functions of social rights are most frequently manifested as objective value order, and its specific duty to protect not only points to specific state institutions such as the constitutional review organs and judicial organs, but to the whole national governance system, thus forming a Chinese-style institutional guarantee model of social rights.

台湾地区“大法官释宪”对警察权转型的影响

从1990年至今,台湾地区“大法官释宪”制度在限制警察权和保障人权等方面发挥了重要作用。在人身自由等基本人权保障方面,“大法官”议决坚持法官保留、正当法律程序、法律明确性和比例原则,使威权时期极度扩张的警察权受到严格规范和制约,进而实现转型。近年来在警察执法的隐私权保护领域,“大法官释宪”也取得了一定成绩。台湾地区“大法官释宪”制度的升级,将继续影响台湾地区警政制度的发展与走向。

宪法的“天衣”在于实施:基于“五四宪法”的宪法监督之“缝”的思考

“五四宪法”的“天衣”之“缝”,典型地体现在其确立了中国宪法监督制度,却落下宪法监督主体虚设、宪法解释缺位、改变或者撤销机制错位的规范之“缝”。“八二宪法”,通过增设全国人大常委会作为宪法监督机关、明确宪法解释权、备案审查等依托机制建章立制等方面,在规范层面的“天衣”补“缝”,也形成了中国宪法监督的“宪法监督—宪法解释—撤销”三元规范结构。循此结构,新时代以来,补强宪法监督机关、落实宪法解释机制、加强和完善备案审查制度,三线接续并进,在全面贯彻实施宪法中编制宪法“天衣”的“无缝码”。如是梳理,以宪法监督为例,在宪法发展的阶段接续中,在规范和实践的螺旋互动中,呈现出中国自主的宪法学知识体系的“五四宪法”之维。

农村集体经济组织与集体土地所有权关系的现代化重构

自1999年《中华人民共和国宪法修正案》通过以来,农村集体经济组织在我国的法秩序中从“类型化法律术语”转变为“专用型法律概念”,但这一概念所指代的现实对应物一直模糊不清。《农村集体经济组织法》致力于为农村集体经济组织的重建和发展提供新的法律框架和制度保障,这一目标的实现,需要重构农村集体经济组织与集体土地所有权的法律关系。为此,应当按照党的二十届三中全会提出的“发展新型农村集体经济,构建产权明晰、分配合理的运行机制,赋予农民更加充分的财产权益”改革目标,着力打破“行政区划型集体土地所有权”的理论藩篱和制度迷思,然后按照“经营性—非经营性”标准合理解释《农村集体经济组织法》的相关规定,从而最终建立农村集体经济组织和农村基层群众自治组织分别享有并行使部分集体土地所有权的法律制度。

论合宪性审查的解释渊源

随着合宪性审查问题日益受到理论和实践的重视,宪法渊源的援引成为研究的焦点。目前研究重点在于宪法条文本身的引用,而很少考量宪法渊源的其他形式种类。之所以会出现这种现象,虽然与我国素来所尊崇以成文法作为裁决依据的做法有关,但是可能忽视了个案裁判对宪法解释渊源的多元化需求。英美法系、大陆法系乃至混合法系国家法院在合宪性审查中会选择各种解释渊源作为审查依据,并呈现出可以遵循的规律性。在合宪性审查过程中,宪法解释渊源为宪法发现提供找法工具,为宪法解释提供权威性理由,也为宪法论证提供了形成裁判性规范的转化基础,具有鲜明的个案功能。我国合宪性审查解释渊源运用尚存在模糊不清、实践缺位和援引单一等缺陷,需要进一步完善。只有从宪法解释和适用角度对合宪性审查机构选择宪法渊源的方式进行了解和研究,而不是仅仅停留在援引宪法文本之上,才能形成一个适应我国合宪性审查需要的宪法解释渊源体系。

中国宪法中“领导”的概念学诠释

要完全领会中国宪法中“领导”概念所承载的丰富内容与信息,就必须要借概念学的研究思维及方法才能满足。对“领导”概念作定义性理解应该强调“领导”的字本位与递归性,即“领导”的词义是“领”的字义与“导”的字义的结合与升华,“领导”的实质是对领导活动复杂意义的简化与归纳。对“领导”概念作入宪源由追问应该强调“领导”的主题性与理论链,即“领导”与人类解放的重大使命紧密结合,“领导”的思想与理想深嵌在社会主义制度体系之中。对“领导”概念作规范上的分析应该强调“领导”的语境性和意象性,即“领导”的文本意指受到语境条件的关涉与约束,语境的形象建构使“领导”由静态的表述转化为动态的画面。对“领导”概念作宪治意义的思考应该强调“领导”的描绘性和诠释性,即“领导”描绘或诠释了对中国宪法秩序有决定性影响的宪法事实,表征社会主义领导活动民主化、法治化的价值追求。

制度性保障理论的源流与当代宪法价值

魏玛宪法时期的制度性保障理论以“现状保障”为主,施密特将魏玛宪法中的制度与权利分离,通过保障制度的核心不受侵犯,进而保障公民的基本权。“乡镇自治”“公务员制度”与“财产权制度”均为制度性保障的实例。德国基本法时期的制度性保障成为基本权利客观面向的一个功能,主要通过构建制度、维护制度的核心来保障基本权利不受侵犯。对于我国的宪法学,制度性保障理论应是宪法解释的新理念,将特定宪法条款解释为制度,可以有效发挥部分纲领性条款的实效性,以此可以约束立法乃至司法、行政,也为合宪性审查提供依据。

个罪法益与构成要件的解释方法

个罪的法益与构成要件需要妥当解释,才能公正合理地适用。明确个罪的法益,有助于认清犯罪本质和处罚范围;以法益保护指导构成要件解释,有助于划清处罚界限。个罪法益可从体系地位、罪状规定和比较法视角等确定。负有照护职责人员性侵罪的法益是已满14周岁不满16周岁女性的性自主权,而不是身心健康;高空抛物罪的法益是地面公共场所人们生活起居的安稳有序的状态,而不是公共安全。构成要件解释应坚持客观解释论和实质解释论,在刑法文义的限制下,做合理的平义解释以及必要的扩大解释或缩小解释。妨害安全驾驶罪的“暴力”是广义的,“行驶中”是指发动机处于启动状态;负有照护职责人员性侵罪的“发生性关系”是指男性生殖器针对女性的侵入身体式的性行为,包括性交、肛交和口交;高空抛物罪的物品性质(属性、种类)不宜限定;侵害英雄烈士名誉、荣誉罪的对象应限定为烈士。个罪的解释应遵循罪刑法定原则,禁止做不利于被告人的类推解释。从地面向高空抛掷物品而使其从高空坠落,或者跳楼自杀,或者将他人从楼顶等高空推下等行为,均不符合高空抛物罪。

论党内法规的宪法渊源功能

党内法规具备宪法渊源功能,它既能够在宪法修改中充当修宪渊源,也能够在合宪性审查中充当认知渊源。以宪法文本的认可和党内法规是否涉及宪法关系、是否涉及实定的宪法关系为标准,我们可以识别出具备宪法修改渊源地位和宪法适用渊源地位的党内法规。在修宪活动中,党内法规通过中国共产党和修宪机关互动的方式转化为宪法内容;在合宪性审查中,党内法规主要通过与宪法解释相结合的方式为合宪性审查依据提供内容。在诸多认知渊源中,党内法规、党和国家政策、宪法解释、合宪性审查成例、部分国际条约都属于合宪性审查机关应该适用的宪法渊源,应当优先适用,民族风俗习惯属于可以适用的宪法渊源,其适用顺位低于应该适用的宪法渊源。

合宪性解释在刑事司法中的运用

宪法学和刑法学的本体都应当是解释论,在此意义上,合宪性解释对宪法和刑法都具有非常重要的意义,具体到宪法上,其具有实施宪法、彰显宪法保护公民权利与自由等意义;具体到刑法上,主要体现为出罪、明确刑法多含义条文在具体案件中的真实含义等意义。刑法解释方法位阶理论限制了合宪性解释的运用,因此合宪性解释的具体运用的理论前提是对刑法解释位阶予以否定。罪刑法定原则体现了宪法中罪刑关系的基本内容,合宪性解释在实践中具体运用需要借助罪刑法定原则的实施。在刑事司法个案审判中,引入比例原则也是合宪性解释的具体要求。

刑法中的类型思维之提倡

类型思维是概念思维呈现没落态势时的基本法学思维方式,具有价值导向性、介于抽象与具体之间的中间性、使法规范与生活现实相互调适的开放性等特点。在刑法立法上,类型化应是我国将来的刑事立法发展方向;在刑法适用中,合理解释犯罪构成要件、准确形成案件事实都离不开类型思维。类型思维引入刑法领域,标志着刑法学摒弃主客体分离而采用主客体并存的认识模式,意味着刑法解释立场由形式解释论、主观解释论向实质解释论、客观解释论的革新,并带来了对禁止类推解释原则的深思。

论宪法在私法秩序内的意义

宪法基本权利具有防御国家的主观性权利和客观法规范的双面性,其效力亦扩散于私法领域。在具体的司法实践中,围绕宪法权利与民事权利的不同特性与法理联系,司法适用过程主要从三个结构层面上展开。但对于我国在私法领域中直接适用宪法权利规范的合理性需要进行反思,确定宪法介入私法领域的方式,在本质上是要明确宪法价值的取向。针对我国法治进程,主张应在司法实践中致力于通过对私法概括性条款的合宪性解释,来促进宪法基本权利规范在私法领域的生效与遵行,以最大限度地保障和实现公民的基本权利。

当下中国宪法司法化的路径与方法

法院适用法律必须解释法律,而解释法律又必须进行合宪解释,合宪解释是目前我国宪法在司法中适用的最好方式,是现行体制下我国宪法司法化的最佳路径。各级人民法院在民事、刑事和行政诉讼中审理每一起案件适用法律时都应当考虑到宪法,进行合宪解释。每一位法官都是合宪解释的主体,都享有法律解释权和宪法解释权,但这并不否定最高人民法院的最高司法解释权以及全国人大常委会对法律和宪法的最终解释权。法院通过合宪解释方式间接适用宪法,不必将宪法作为裁判依据而引用,但应当在裁判说理部分引用宪法条款。法院在合宪解释过程中发现法律明显违宪时,应当中止诉讼,逐级上报,由最高人民法院报送全国人大常委会处理。

宪法变迁的路径选择——以我国现行宪法文本为分析主线

一部"良宪"的存在及其有效运作,是树立宪法权威、实现良法善治的规范前提,更是依宪治国和依宪执政的文本基础。我国现行宪法虽历经四次局部修改,但仍存在诸多疏漏和不完善之处,在日新月异的改革进程和社会现实面前已呈现出明显的滞后性和不周延性。陷入困局的宪法解释和局部修宪无法实现宪法精神与面貌的全面更新,也无法满足宪法整体性变革的时代需求。只有适时启动全面修宪,修订一部与时俱进、继往开来的新宪法,方能为宪法权威的真正树立提供坚实的文本支撑,铸就新时期深化改革、持续发展的宪法根基和法治动力。

论国家监察体制改革的修宪保障

国家监察体制改革与监察委员会的设立,乃是事关全局的重大政治改革,是国家监察制度的顶层设计。如此重大的政治改革,不能缺少宪法的参与。改革的内容关涉国家的宪制结构,改革的进行也应做到于法有据,改革的成果同样需要借由法律予以固化。传统的宪法解释理论不能回应我国国家监察体制改革,因此,必须要用修宪保障国家监察体制改革的顺利进行。

《宪法解释程序法》的意义、思路与框架

宪法解释是宪法适用的主要方式,经常性的宪法解释可以为宪法实施提供必要的基础与方法。而宪法解释程序则是宪法解释运行的时间与空间规则的集合,制定《宪法解释程序法》有助于规范宪法解释行为与程序,有助于为启动宪法解释、完善我国宪法适用制度提供可能的条件。为此,有必要制定我国的《宪法解释程序法》,以此寻求宪法适用的契机。