- 林书友：为什么我们没有给巴黎恐怖袭击加上引号
- Congressmen's term should be limited. According to the Federalist Papers No. 55: I am equally unable to conceive that there are at this time, or can be in any short time, in the United States, any sixty-five or a hundred men capable of recommending themselves to the choice of the people at large, who would either desire or dare, within the short space of two years, to
betray the solemn trust committed to them. - Campaign Finance
- This has led to an explosion of campaign finance activity and contributed to a midterm election that will likely outpace net spending in the last presidential election, particularly in independent spending
- McCutcheon v. FEC: 1971 FECA's aggregate limits restricting how much money a donor may contribute in total to all candidates or committees violated the First Amendment
- Citizens United v. FEC: 判决认定通过资助来播放批评其他候选人的竞选广告是合法的，但仍旧限制企业或组织对于候选人的直接金钱资助
- Marbury vs Madison
- 庄园主马伯利由于上届政府的疏忽，而未收到“太平绅士”的委任状，而继任政府的国务卿麦迪逊拒绝将委任状下发，根据1789年《司法法》第13条，最高法院对此具有初审管辖权，于是马伯利直接向当时并无实权的最高法院提起诉讼，要求得到自己的委任状。
- 首席大法官约翰·马歇尔判定《司法法》因为违宪而无效，理由是根据美国宪法第三条第二项第二款，最高法院对此案并不具有初审管辖权，而仅具有上诉管辖权，故将案件撤销。虽然马伯利未得到委任状，但美国最高法院得以在避免与行政权正面冲突的基础上，树立了对宪法的解释权，即司法审查权。由此开始，司法权成为制衡行政权和立法权的第三种权力。
- 美国内战Scott v. Sandford，1857
- 即便自由的黑人也不是《美国宪法》中所指的公民，所以斯科特无权在联邦法院提起诉讼[1]:123。
- 斯科特不能因为到过所谓自由准州威斯康星就获得自由，因为在威斯康星准州排除奴隶制的是《密苏里妥协案》，而制定《密苏里妥协案》超出了国会的宪法权力[1]:123。(一国两制的土崩瓦解)
- 斯科特不能因为到过自由州伊利诺伊就获得自由，因为他一旦回到密苏里州，他的身份就只受密苏里法律支配[1]:123。
- 斯科特案是美国最高法院历史上的一场恶梦。1939年出任大法官的哈佛法学院教授法兰克福特（Felix Frankfurter, 1939─1962任职）曾回忆说，当年他和其他大法官心照不宣，“从来不提斯科特案判决这码事，就像那些儿子被绞死的家庭从来不提绳索和绞架一样”。直到20世纪60年代后，这种家丑不可外扬的情况才有所改变。如今，当来自全美和世界各地的旅游者参观美国最高法院时，通常是先观看一部长度约10分钟左右的录像短片，介绍最高法院历史，其中特别提到1857年斯科特案判决的重大失误，自扬家丑，警告世人。《美国宪政历程》
- Equal Protection Clause: 第十四修正案中，保障每名美国公民不被各州的州政府剥夺依法律享有的公民权
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins: “尽管条例本身是公正的，表面上也不偏不倚，但是，如果公权部门带着恶意的眼光并以不平等的方式执行和应用它们的话……那么，对平等的公正（equaljustice）的否定仍然为宪法所禁止。”正是这一立场——表面公正的法律，但却不公正地加以运用——也违反宪法的平等保护条款，使本案开创了一个先例。像联邦巡回法院在郭湖安诉美国所作的那样，最高法院现在明确表示，法院可以超越法律的表象，从宪法的角度来评价它。在这样作时，它把这一原则又向前推进了一步，赋予了平等保护条款以新的解释：法院能够考察一项法律是如何执行的，进而决定它是否符合宪法的标准。
- 在布朗案中，沃伦法官认为教育是“一项必须以一切可能的平等的手段获得的权利”，他甚至强调教育本身是一项基本的宪法权利。巴尔金对此评论说，“如你能指出最为关键的问题是教育平等权，你才可以讲出你是否具有平等的机会。”没有这一理念的澄清，继后的判令只能比沃伦的判词更加保守，限制性的解释也就出现了，在１９７３年圣安东尼奥独立校区诉罗德里格斯案中，法庭多数意见认为州方无义务平衡市区学校的资助，而这些学校的收税要明显低于邻近的郊区学校，判决认为宪法第十四修正案“不需要实现绝对的平等以达到绝对精确的利益平衡”，并指出教育“并非一项基本利益”。
- Fisher v. University of Texas: “It is equally settled that universities may use race as part of a holistic admissions program where it cannot otherwise achieve diversity.” (strict scrutiny is applied)
- Police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens
- The human toll of America's public defender crisis
- Would You Let the I.R.S. Prepare Your Taxes?
Corruption
- Corporations and Political Corruption: The Curse of Cronyism and How to End It:
- Solution against corruption:
- Separating economy and state: laissez-faire capitalism - government would have no power to privilege some or penalize others
- A limited, enumerated powers of government under Constitution
- Culture of individualism: The Constitution alone is not enough. It cannot withstand a long-term concerted effort to subvert it. A constitution devised to protect individual rights requires an individualist philosophy in the culture to preserve it
- Its people have the gut to defend their individual rights
- Non-Solution:
- Election: no way to limit money from corporate to candidate, public election fund could not be distributed fairly
- More democracy: A more democratic regulatory-entitlement state, one that allegedly would stop government from violating rights for the benefit of corporations, would still violate rights. A regulatory-entitlement state run according to the wishes of the majority is as unjust as one run according to the wishes of a politically connected minority. (The American mixed economy has elements of both.) In each case, the system is essentially the same; the only difference is the quantity and identity of the victims.
没有评论:
发表评论