论文部分内容阅读
在美国宪法解释中,不同的学者或者法官具有不同的立场和解释方式,大体上形成了两大阵营,即原旨主义解释方式和能动主义解释方式。面对司法审查制度中的“反多数”难题,任何一种解释方式都必须树立自身的立场,原旨主义和能动主义亦是如此。这两种解释方式都选择利用民主来为自身的合法性进行辩护,在“谁在坚持民主”和“谁能促进民主”这两个问题上两种解释方式采取了一致的立场,并给出各自的论证。通过对双方论辩内容的细致梳理,我们会发现宪法解释中对立的双方是在利用不同的民主观作为自身的理论基础。
In the interpretation of the United States Constitution, different scholars or judges have different positions and explanations, generally forming two camps, that is, the fundamentalist interpretation and the active interpretation. In the face of the “anti-multiple ” problem in the judicial review system, any kind of interpretation must establish its own position, as do the fundamentalists and the activists. Both of these explanations choose to use democracy to justify their own legitimacy and to adopt a consistent position in both interpretations on the two issues of “whoever insists on democracy” and “who can promote democracy” , And give their own arguments. Through careful examination of the contents of the arguments between the two parties, we will find that the two opposing sides in the interpretation of the Constitution are using different concepts of democracy as their own theoretical basis.