美国疑难宪法案件司法审查的两种模式及其补充——以“个案宪法权利”的证立为视角

发布时间：2019-05-08 02:22

【摘要】：疑难宪法案件的形成有其思想和规范渊源。司法审查必须补充演绎正当的大前提,即证立"个案宪法权利"的正当性。宪法解释学模式通过回溯道德权利的理论渊源重构个案中的宪法权利以支持宪法裁判;恢复性民主商谈司法模式主张将制宪者达成宪法原则的民主过程嵌入宪法裁判之中,寄希望法官间通过协商方式达成低限度的理论共识支持未完全理论化司法协议作为裁判的结果。程序主义宪法观将司法审查的合法性置于民主理论的语境中,使司法审查的合法性问题能够在民主的语境中得到缓解。宪法解释学模式的一元论与恢复性民主商谈司法模式的多元论欲满足司法审查所承载的立法与裁判的双重责任,必须将司法审查视为原则的论坛、公共理性的典范,以弥合重新道德化解释与重新民主化商谈之间的裂痕。
[Abstract]:The formation of difficult constitutional cases has its origin of thought and norms. Judicial review must supplement the legitimate premise, that is, to establish the legitimacy of the constitutional right of individual cases. The mode of constitutional hermeneutics reconstructs the constitutional rights in the case by tracing back the theoretical origin of moral rights in order to support the constitutional adjudication; The restorative democratic negotiation judicial model advocates that the democratic process of constitutional principles reached by the constitutionalists should be embedded in the constitutional adjudication. It is hoped that judges can reach a low theoretical consensus through consultation to support the incomplete theorizing of judicial agreement as a result of adjudication. The procedural constitutional view puts the legitimacy of judicial review in the context of democratic theory, so that the legitimacy of judicial review can be alleviated in the democratic context. The monism of the model of constitutional hermeneutics and the pluralistic theory of the judicial model of restorative democracy in order to meet the dual responsibilities of legislation and adjudication carried by judicial review, judicial review must be regarded as a forum of principles and a model of public rationality. In order to bridge the gap between the re-moralization of interpretation and re-democratization negotiations.
【作者单位】：广州大学公法研究中心;
【基金】：国家社科基金重大招标项目(09&ZD062)
【分类号】：D971.2;DD916.2

【参考文献】