论文部分内容阅读
福利权是否应宪法化乃是美国理论与实务界持久论战的经典议题。囿于植根于美国社会的古典自由主义政治文化传统,联邦宪法在其生成与演变的过程中始终未将具有积极权利属性的福利权宪法化;而在联邦宪法文本、政治文化与制度等因素的共同作用下,联邦最高法院也未能运用宪法解释权演绎出宪法福利权。然而,宪法文本缺失公民福利权的事实,却并未成为联邦最高法院经由宪法条款解释以保护公民福利权的绊脚石。联邦最高法院保护公民福利权的司法实践,不仅令人由衷地钦佩美国最高司法机关介入福利权这一富有争议领域的勇气,更是引导我们思考这样一个问题:我国宪法福利权能否通过司法的介入而实现其应有的效力与权威?囿于政治制度的差异,美国联邦最高法院保护福利权的经验固然不能被全盘照搬,但福利权背后所蕴含的价值共识与利益指向,仍然能够让我们从中汲取养分。
Whether the welfare right should be constitutionalized is a classic topic in the protracted polemics between the theoretical and practical circles in the United States. Due to the classical liberal political and cultural tradition rooted in the American society, the federal constitution has never been able to formalize the welfare rights that have the positive rights in the process of its formation and evolution. In the context of the federal constitutional text, political culture and system, The federal Supreme Court also failed to use the power of constitutional interpretation of the constitutional welfare rights. However, the fact that the constitutional text lacks the welfare rights of citizens has not become a stumbling block to the Supreme Court’s constitutional provisions that protect the rights of citizens. The judicial practice of the Federal Supreme Court to protect the welfare rights of citizens not only makes us sincerely admire the courage of the highest judicial body of the United States in the controversial field of welfare right, but also leads us to think about the question whether the right to constitutional welfare in our country can be interfered with by judicial means And to achieve its due effectiveness and authority? 囿 in the political system differences, the United States Supreme Court’s experience in the protection of welfare rights can not be completely copied, but the welfare rights behind the value of consensus and interest points can still allow us to Learn nutrients.