合宪性推定论——一种宪法方法_宪法证明书合宪性规定

合宪性推定论——一种宪法方法由刀豆文库小编整理，希望给你工作、学习、生活带来方便，猜你可能喜欢“宪法证明书合宪性规定”。

论文中英文摘要

作者姓名：王书成论文题目：合宪性推定论——一种宪法方法

作者简介：王书成，男，1982年3月出生，2006年9月师从于中国人民大学胡锦光教授，于2009年6月获博士学位。期间，经教育部全国选拨以及美国国务院遴选，获得2008-2009学年中美富布赖特（Fulbright）联合培养博士生项目（PhD Diertation Program）资助，在哈佛大学法学院（Harvard Law School）、埃默里大学法学院（Emory Law School）专门从事博士论文研究工作，美方协助指导老师Michael J.Perry教授。已独自在《法学研究》、《中国法学》、《法学》等刊物发表博士论文相关研究成果十余篇，其中数篇被《新华文摘》、《人大报刊复印资料》、《中国宪法年刊》摘登或转载。

摘要

合宪性推定是宪法中一种重要的宪法方法。从美国等法治国家的经验来看，宪法法理（constitutional jurisprudence）的实践在很大程度上无法绕开合宪性推定方法。合宪性推定作为一种原理性方法，已在德国、日本、澳大利亚、加拿大等法治国家被广泛运用。合宪性推定方法在很大程度上淋漓尽致地体现了宪法的本体性特征，对于宪法审查制度及其实践具有重要的推进效用，且对于中国宪法方法论的建构也具有重要的启示作用。

探究合宪性推定方法，一方面在很大程度上可以从知识任务的角度填补目前国内外研究合宪性推定方法的诸多空白地带，从比较法的角度厘清其内在的原理及方法，从而为制度的完善提供更充足的知识储备；另一方面为中国宪法方法论体系的建构提供一种引论，进而为寻找符合中国制度实际的宪法实践提供一种方向，并为中国宪法学提供一种理论指向。当然，合宪性推定研究对于目前社会上出现的“轻言违宪”现象、备案审查制度的困境等诸多现实问题，也可以在方法论上提供一剂良方，进而可以使目前的宪法审查在中国制度现实下进一步良性发展。

论文由导论、正文六章及结语等部分组成。

在导论部分，从合宪性推定出发，分析了目前中国宪法方法论贫瘠的状况，并对宪法方法论的理论体系进行了体系性探讨。中国宪法学的方法体系在很大程度上还局限于探讨宪法学的研究方法。但如欲使宪法作用于社会，必须具备系统的具有实践性的宪法方法论体系。

进而在方法论体系上，从学理上区分了宪法学方法论，宪法学研究方法论与宪法方法论，并对各自的内涵进行了比较分析。同时结合合宪性推定研究本身，对宪法学研究方法从宏观、中观、微观三个维度进行了学理探索，并进而指出当下中国宪法学的研究应该重视基本原理与方法这一“中观层面”，而不能仍然停留在“宏大叙事”，或者仅仅在微观层面构建缺乏制度支撑的纯粹性“操作技术”，不管这种技术规则是从西方直接拿来的，还是自我“闭门造车”而成的。合宪性推定研究体现了从“原理”及“方法”层面切入的研究思路。

第1章对合宪性推定的范畴进行了研究。合宪性推定起源并发展于美国法，目前已被诸多法治国家所采纳。首先，从经验、事实等角度，对“合宪性”与“推定”这两个概念的法学内涵进行了辨析。然后，通过对合宪性推定源流的探究可以发现，合宪性推定已经不再仅仅是一种宪法技术，而已成为一种原理性方法，延及至德国、加拿大、澳大利亚、日本、印度等其他法治国家。进而概括总结了作为宪法方法的合宪性推定所具有的主要特性：（1）由判例而生；（2）具有可反驳性；（3）产生举证责任倒置；（4）具有一定的裁量空间；（5）具有裁量上的约束性。最后通过考察其他相关方法可以发现，合宪性推定作为一种原理性方法，其逻辑与“合宪性法律解释”、“回避宪法问题”等方法具有异曲同工之妙，在很大程度上都体现了对立法权的尊重，同时也保持了司法权的相对独立性。

第2章对合宪性推定的权力哲学进行了探究。合宪性推定作为原理性方法，以国家权力为哲学基础，因为其主要表现形态为国家权力之间的尊重。宪法学家塞耶（Thayer）通过对国家权力关系（宪法审查权与立法权）的分析，为合宪性推定提供了有力的权力哲学基础。接着探讨了立法权的有限公定力、从“裁量”到“立法形成余地”等理论，这些都是合宪性推定权力哲学的必要性知识。然后对合宪性推定所根基的权力学说，从历史的纬度进行了深入研究。亚里士多德、波立比阿等学者所阐释的古典权力学说虽然在形式上存在国家权力之间的分立，但最终在很大程度上仍然表现为各个利益集团之间的联合，是一种混合政制。以洛克、孟德斯鸠等学者为开创代表的现代权力学说，不再局限于形式上的权力分工，而更强调权力间的制衡及相互促进，形成以民主为基础的制衡机制，进而可以有效地防止各个垄断利益集团之间的利益瓜分，而且在制度上保证国家权力的最终指向是人民的利益，达到一种均衡政制。由合宪性推定的权力哲学基础，也可反思未来宪法方法论的根基不应该仅仅局限于基本权利或国家权力一端，毋宁应该在两者的统领协调中予以体系化。最后，对巴赖特（Randy Barnett）等学者对于合宪性推定方法的反驳进行了剖析，进而证成合宪性推定并不与人权相冲突，同时反驳了自由推定原则（Presumption of Liberty）的虚幻性和不可行性，指出人权保护在本质上具有两种逻辑形态，即直接的权利救济和间接的国家权力制衡。

第3章探寻了合宪性推定的正当性。合宪性推定的存在具有政治上的正当性，这源于宪法的政治性、宪法审查的政治性、判决执行的政治性、宪法法官的政治性等。从规范法学的角度来看，合宪性推定的规范正当性来源于宪法具有最高性等规范特性，并与“穷尽法律救济”、“禁止向一般条款逃逸”等方法具有诸多相通之处。最后从法经济学的角度分析了合宪性推定的正当性，因为其可以减少法官进行宪法审判的政治风险、有效控制宪法案件数量的膨胀等。这些也都使得作为宪法方法的合宪性推定截然区别于一般的法律方法。

第4章研究了合宪性推定在社会经济活动领域中的适用。首先从美国法的经验出发，探讨了代表性的洛克纳时代及其特征，并对洛克纳时代结束的缘由等因素进行了分析，最后得出合宪性推定对于社会经济活动的立法规制一般予以适用，进而从国家理性与市场逻辑的角度探究了在社会经济活动领域适用合宪性推定的理论基础。

第5章重点分析了合宪性推定的具体方法。合宪性推定首先表现为证明责任的转换，即要求提出违宪的当事人证明制定法明显违反了宪法。如果举证失败，该当事人将要承担合宪性推定所带来的后果。在实践中，法院难免遇到疑难案件，而合宪性推定可以作为消解疑难案件的一种有效方法。进而对普通法院适用宪法及合宪性推定方法的可能性进行了理论探讨，指出遵循合宪性推定逻辑的合宪性法律解释方法必须区分宪法方法与法律方法两个层面。从德国等国家的实践形态来看，遵循合宪性推定逻辑的合宪性解释在特殊的情形下也可以作为一种判决形式，从而有效调和国家权力之间的法治关系。当然宪法审查的进行离不开宪法事实（Constitutional facts），因而通过分析合宪性推定与宪法事实审查之间的关系，指出了在宪法事实缺位的时候，往往是合宪性推定适用的时机。最后分析了合宪性推定的界限，即基本权利。同时对于未列举权利的诸多疑惑、困境也进行了研究，指出合宪性推定方法在逻辑上并没有忽视对未列举权利的保护。

第6章结合中国实际，从方法论的角度，在概念、实践及制度层面对合宪性推定的本土意义进行了思考。首先以合宪性推定为线索从方法论的角度对目前使用的“宪法审查”、“合宪性审查”、“违宪审查”等概念进行了辨析，并以方法论为线索勾勒了相关概念的逻辑层次，从而在一定程度上纠正了目前存在的诸多相关概念相互混用的情形。同时，对目前生活中发生的诸多宪法事例进行分析，也不能忽视合宪性推定方法，否则便是一种没有遵循宪法方法的非法治逻辑。对于宪法事例，既要分析违宪的理由，同时也要分析合宪的理由，并从宪法方法论的角度对之进行权衡。最后从制度方法的角度，结合现有法规审查备案室的职能，对目前我国宪法审查权进行了探讨，指出在学理上应由启动权、审查权、决定权这三种权力维度来发挥合宪性审查权的整体职能。同时分析了合宪性推定对于我国宪法审查工作的理论与实践意义。

在结语部分，沿着合宪性推定方法的研究，对于中国宪法方法论的理论建构进行了展望性探讨。从理论上指出了宪法方法论的理论建构必须根基于宪法区别于其他部门法的本体性特征，并对这些特征进行了研究，如宪法规范的极抽象性、宪法的强政治性、宪法的社会性以及宪法位阶的最高性等等。宪法方法的本体性决定了宪法解释的前命题与方法截然区别于一般的法律解释方法。同时结合合宪性推定研究，对宪法方法论的模式选择进行了一定的探索，为未来宪法方法论在理论上的进一步发展与完善作了铺垫。

关键词：合宪性推定；宪法方法论；国家权力；宪法审查；谦抑主义

Presumption of Constitutionality-A Theory towards Constitutional

Jurisprudence

Wang Shucheng ABSTRACT

Presumption of constitutionality is a central tenet in constitutional law.Most constitutional cases are aociated with this tenet in America and some other countries with the rule of law.The role of constitutional review power is also related to this doctrine.By studying this doctrine, we can understand its logic and inner principles on the one hand, so that it is poible to apply it into practice in China.On the other hand, it can also urge the development of constitutional jurisprudence in academic circles.From the characteristics of presumption of constitutionality, we can distinguish many differences between constitutional jurisprudence and general jurisprudence in terms of its methodology.This diertation works with a comparative approach to study the intrinsic foundations, rather than pure techniques of presumption of constitutionality.It encompaes preface, six chapters and epilogue.The first chapter concerns the category and concept of presumption of constitutionality.This tenet is originated and developed in US.Firstly, it explores different concepts of “Constitutionality” and “Presumption” from empirical and evidential perspectives in Chinese context.Then it is able to be concluded that presumption of constitutionality is not merely a technique in the practice occasionally, rather a general doctrine involved in the proce of constitutional review.It is now being applied in Germany, Japan, Australia, and Canada and so forth.Presumption of constitutionality is also logically consistent with the doctrine of Canon of Constitutional Doubt and Avoiding Constitutional Iues.The chapter 2 explores the theoretical foundation of presumption of constitutionality.Presumption of constitutionality is based on the doctrine of separation of powers.It claims that judicial power should keep deferential to legislative power.And also James Bradley Thayer gave a landmark interpretation for its theoretical foundation in his famous article ”The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law” published in Harvard Law Review.This masterpiece is explored again in comparative ways.Then, this chapter concerns the scope of legislative power, presumption of legislative action and some related theories as basics of presumption of constitutionality.At last, it rebuts the theoretical attack from Profeor Randy Barnett and demonstrates that the presumption of constitutionality is a reasonable and rational doctrine in modern constitutionalism, which is not conflicted with human rights and unenumerated rights in the

theory.The chapter 3 discues the legitimacy of presumption of constitutionality.We can justify presumption of constitutionality from the political lens of the constitution, constitutional review, constitutional adjudication and constitutional judges etc.From positivism perspectives, presumption of constitutionality is based on the supremacy of the constitution in legal system, that is, in some sense, consistent with the doctrine of Exhaustion Doctrine etc.From economical perspectives, the expanding number of constitutional cases in China is able to be controlled with this doctrine, and the political risks and burdens of constitutional judges are able to be reduced, as judges, also a “rational man” in the theory of economics, are reluctant to touch sensitive politics.Through these lenses, we can also make the distinction between constitutional jurisprudence and general jurisprudence.The chapter 4 explores the application of presumption of constitutionality in social and economic areas.Firstly, it studies the reasons of Lochner Era and judicial stance in Post-Lochner Era.It is concluded that presumption of constitutionality applied in social and economical areas, is based on the rationality of state powers and market economy system in a certain extent.The chapter 5 explores judicial methodologies of presumption of constitutionality.First, presumption of constitutionality will shift the burden of proof.If the challenger fails to provide enough proof that makes unconstitutionality obvious, then he will bear the disadvantage of presumption of constitutionality.And also presumption of constitutionality is a good approach to deal with some hard constitutional cases.It also discues the poibility for ordinary courts, rather than specific constitutional court in civil law system, to apply the constitution and the doctrine of presumption of constitutionality, thus, points out that applicable methods should be distinguished between constitutional and statutory levels.The doctrine of presumption of constitutionality, in some sense, could also be applied as a kind of constitutional adjudication with a specific form in German system.It is also related to constitutional facts in the proce of constitutional review.And at last it analyzes the boundary of presumption of constitutionality, which is fundamental rights.The chapter 6 explores positive influences of presumption of constitutionality in Chinese context.First, it can lead to a rational methodology to analyze current constitutional disputes.We should deal with not only unconstitutional but also constitutional factors in these constitutional disputes, and then make a rational decision comprehensively.And also three kinds of constitutional review powers in different levels are distinguished in China: power of initiating, power of reviewing, power of decision-making in Chinese constitutional review system.And it also explores the function of Institution of Putting Statutes on Records in the system of National People’s Congre.The epilogue tries to invoke the further pursuing of constitutional jurisprudence which is in accordance with Chinese system, and points out that understanding constitutional jurisprudence

must resort to ontological features of constitutional law, such as its supremacy in legal system etc.it must be emphasized that separation of powers and institutional construction are still significant projects in China in order to make the constitution applicable.Otherwise, human rights entrenched in the constitution will probably be only a kind of “Utopia”, if without checks and balance of state powers in Chinese constitutionalism.Key words: Presumption of constitutionality;Methodology of constitutional jurisprudence;State powers;Constitutional review;Thayerian deference