论文部分内容阅读
十九世纪初,一位哲人在其历史哲学讲演中指出,“我们不能够说中国有一种宪法……所以我们只能谈谈中国的行政”。时至二十世纪之末,中国建立了行政诉讼与国家赔偿制度,我们则要申明,谈到中国的行政就不能不谈中国的宪法。 那么,为什么说中华帝国没有宪法呢?宪法的真正意义是什么?为什么有人嘲讽中国的行政诉讼是以卵击石?为什么我们要申明行政诉讼的推行是真实宪法的成长?换言之,行政诉讼这种法律形式的内涵是什么?它在怎样的意义基础上符合于宪法的意义?二者意义的吻合又
In the early nineteenth century, a philosopher pointed out in his Philosophical History lecture: “We can not say that China has a constitution ... so we can only talk about China’s administration.” By the end of the twentieth century, China had established an administrative litigation and state compensation system, and we must affirm that we can not but talk about China’s constitution when it comes to China’s administration. Why then does it mean that the Chinese Empire has no constitution? What is the real meaning of the constitution? Why some people ridiculed China’s administrative litigation by using an oval hit? Why do we want to affirm that the implementation of administrative litigation is a real constitutional growth? In other words, the legal form of administrative litigation What is its connotation and what is the meaning of it conforms to the meaning of the constitution?