导　　师： 李胜渝

学科专业： 030102

授予学位： 硕士

作　　者： ;

机构地区： 西南政法大学

摘　　要： 在美国的宪政史上,司法权并不是从一开始就是一个与行政权、立法权“相互平等的”一权,即使有所谓的平等也仅仅是一种形式上的平等。直到1803年马歇尔大法官在马伯里诉麦迪逊案中确立了司法审查制度——联邦法院尤其是联邦最高法院是联邦或州立法和行政部门立法和行为合宪性的最终裁定者,司法审查权才真正登上了美国宪政的舞台。但是,这个拥有宪法最终解释大权的司法审查权在美国宪法中并无明文规定,只是在马伯里诉麦迪逊案中,马歇尔大法官通过宣布了法院拥有违宪审查权后,法院才渐渐获得了这一重要职权,从而成为真正意义上三权中的一权。违宪审查制度的诞生,使得三权分立、制约平衡体制在宪政制度层面上得以确立。 本文选择沃伦法院这一历史阶段维度,以经典案例为依托,通过分析司法审查制度的确立、存在的理由与价值以及司法能动主义在美国宪政制度中的运行试图对美国司法审查制度的现代化嬗变做一下梳理。1953-1969年的沃伦法院是美国宪政史上司法能动主义最激进的代表。他推翻了种族隔离制度的法律基础,推动了黑人民权运动的顺利发展,扩大了法律平等保护的范围;强化了对言论自由的保障;坚持了司法能动主义立场,限制政府、国会的权力,改变了议会不平等分配议席的做法;维护了公民的民主与自由;开创了流传至今的“米兰达规则”,严格刑事诉讼程序,强化了公民的诉讼权利以及“发现隐私权”等等,其中“布朗案大大发展了司法能动主义的范畴,摆脱了过去那种传统司法职能的束缚,法院在这一过程中成了美国许多地方教育机构的上级机关。在贝克诉卡尔案中,法官卷入了名副其实的政治“棘丛”,再次超越传统的司法权的概念,法官充当选举过程中的主要检查者,必要时甚至执行更改选区的立法职能。格瑞斯沃尔德诉康涅狄格州案“发现了”联邦宪法没有明确提出的“隐私权”这一宪法权利概念。沃伦法院通过经典的案例,以司法能动主义为手段深刻的改变了美国社会的运行、提升了联邦最高法院的宪政地位,成为革命的法院、正义的法院,开启了司法审查制度的现代化嬗变。 司法审查制度作为联邦最高法院维护三权分立、权力制衡的利剑,经历了司法独立、司法审查到司法主权的三个阶段的现代化嬗变。从最初的“既无军权,又无财权,不能支配社会的力量与财富,不能采取任何主动的行动”,是“分立的三权中最弱的一个”到后来所谓的“帝王司法”,即联邦法院尤其是联邦最高法院是联邦或州立法和行政部门立法和行为合宪性的最终裁定者。美国最高法院不仅是权威的象征,而且手握实权,“它能使国会、总统、州长以及立法者俯首就范。”虽然沃伦法院的司法能动主义遭到了法院内外保守人士的激烈反对,但也仅仅局限于学理上的争论而已,因为美国的宪法及其不断发展完善的司法审查制度实乃一切发展的基础。对此,美国著名法学家、纽约大学讲座教授伯纳德·施瓦茨/(Bernard Schwartz/)曾经指出:“美国对人类进步所作的真正贡献不在于它在技术、经济或文化方面的成就,而在于发展了这样的思想:法律是制约权力的手段。”他甚至不无偏见地声称:“在其他国家,权力之争由武装部队来解决;在美国,权力之争由法律家组成的大军来解决。”这种宪政文化、法治文化与法律文化深深的根植于美国社会生活之中,成为美国宪政运行良好的肥沃土壤。 本文主体共分为五部分。 第一部分着重论述了司法审查与美国宪政的辩证关系。司法审查权的起源,司法审查制度在宪政运作层面上的确立,奠基了美国权力分立、权力制衡宪政的逻辑。从高级法理论、民主的不信任论、权力制衡论以及宪法稳定性理论多维度的探讨了司法审查制度在美国宪政中存在的理由与价值。 第二部分交代了作为美国最高法院历史上最革命、最能动的沃伦法院成员组成变化及其形成的相关背景。 第三部分以沃伦法院时期典型案例为依托,通过案例进一步论说沃伦法院所倡导的平等权、自由权与隐私权等公民权利,交代沃伦法院在司法能动主义上所取得的主要成就。奠定了美国最高法院历史上独一无二的“人民法院”。 第四部分以厘清司法能动概念为切入点,梳理了美国司法审查制度从建国时期的司法独立到马歇尔时期确立的司法审查再到以沃伦法院为高潮的司法主权的现代化嬗变。着重论述了沃伦法院以哈兰·斯通的《脚注四》为法理学的根本特征。司法能动最终战胜司法约束,锻造了沃伦法院作为革命的、正义的法院的功绩。 第五部分以沃伦法院开启所谓的“帝王司法”为视角,对美国现代司法审查嬗变进行辩护。就目前理论界的“民主与反多数难题”、“制衡还是帝王司法”的争辩问题做出了梳理与评价。 In the history of American constitution and politics, jurisdiction has never been as "equal" as administration or legislation right from the beginning because the "equality" is just on the forms, until 1803 judicial review system was built by Judge John Marshall in the case of Marbury V. Madison—the Federation Court, especially the Supreme Court is the final judge of the federation or state legislation, administration legislation and conformity-with-constitution, judicial review stepped on the stage of American constitution and politics. However, judicial review with final constitution explanation right just could be found in Marbury V. Madison instead of being prescribed in American Constitution, in which Judge Marshall proclaimed that court possess the right of constitution review, the court achieved the important authority bit by bit, and became one of the tripartite. The naissance of judicial review system means the establishment of power sharing system and balance restrict system. The text is based on the history dimensionality of the Warren Court and classic cases, analyzing the establishment, excuses or existence and value of judicial review system, and judicial activism in American Constitution Politics to tease the modern changes of American judicial review system. From 1953 to 1969, the Warren Court was most radical in judicial activism in the history of American constitution politics. It overset the law foundation of racial segregation, promoted the development of Black civil rights movements, and broadened the extension of equality law protection; it consolidated the guarantee of free speech; it insisted the position of judicial activism, confined the government and congressional power and changed the unequal seat distribution of parliament; it maintained the democracy and freedom of civics; it initiated the "Miranda Rule", tightened the proceeding of criminal, intensified the lawsuit right and "detect privacy right" of civics, etc. Among them, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka greatly developed the category of judicial activism, and cast off past traditional bounds of judicial function, and made court the superior department of education organs in America. In Baker v. Carr, judge was involved in the real political thorns, which originated the concept of surpassing conventional jurisdiction. That means judge is the key inspector during the election procedure, and posses the executing legislation deputy in re-electorate if necessary. Griswold v. Connecticut "found" the constitution concept "privacy right", which have not been advanced in federal constitution. With classical cases, by the artifices of judicial activism, the Warrant Court changed American society course, improved the constitutional and political status of federal Supreme Court and became the revolutionary and just court, and originated the modern changes of judicial review system. Judicial review system is the blade of federal Supreme Court to Maintain Power Sharing System and Power Balance, which have experienced the following three phases: judicial independence, judicial review and judicial dominion. From the beginning—"no military right, no commercial right and no administrating right", the weakest of the tripartite to so-called "justice monarch"—federal court, especially the Supreme Court is the final judge of the Federation, State, administration and conformity-with-constitution. The Supreme Court of the US is the symbol of authority, it holds real power -"it can make the Congress, the president, chief executive and legislator bow and submit." But the judicial activism of the Warren Court was opposed intensely by those conventional keepers, and was bounded in doctrinal debates because American constitution and developing judicial review system is the base of all developments. The famous American jurisprudential scholar, visiting professor of New York University Bernard Schwartz pointed out withal: "What Americans contribute to humans is not skill, economy or culture achievements, but developing those ideas: law is the means to restrict power." Even he declared with prejudice: "in other countries, power is solved by armed forces; in America, power is decided by the army of lawyers." Such constitutional political culture, law-governing culture and law culture has been planted deeply in American social lives, and became the fertile soil for American constitution and politics movements. In addition to the introduction and epilogue, the paper possesses five parts for the body: The first chapter addresses on the dialectical relationship between judicial review and American constitutional politics; the origin and the establishment of judicial review authority settle the foundation of the logics of American Power Sharing System and Power Balance; and discusses the excuses of existence and value of the judicial review system in American constitutional politics from the multi-dimensionality of supreme law theory, distrust in democracy, power balance and stability of constitution. The second chapter explains the member compose and the background introduction of the Warren Court—the most revolutionary and motile court in the history of American Supreme Court. The third chapter is based on the classical cases of the Warren Court period to discuss the equal, liberty, and privacy rights sparked by the Warren Court, and to expatiate the main achievements of the Warren Court on judicial activism, which lay the foundation of the Supreme Court becoming the unique "people's court" The fourth chapter teases modern changes of American judicial review system from judicial independence of the US building days to judicial review establishment of Marshall time, and to the peak - judicial dominion of the Warren Court period. It stressed on that the Warren Court based on the nomological essential features of "footnote 4th" of Harran Stone. Judicial activism failed judicial restrict and the Warrant Court became the revolutionary and just court finally. The fifth chapter considers the modern judicial review changes of the US from the view of the Warren Court originating "Judicatory Monarch", and teases and evaluates the argumentative issues about "Democracy and the counter-majoritarian difficulty" and "Balance or Judicatory Monarch".

关 键 词： 沃伦法院 司法独立 司法审查 司法能动 司法主权

分 类 号： [D971.2 D916]

领　　域： [政治法律] [政治法律]