论文部分内容阅读
美国的违宪审查制度在人类制度史上具有开创意义并广为各国仿效。但自马伯里诉麦迪逊案以来,如何克服反多数难题、解决麦迪逊两难始终是违宪审查实践无法回避的问题。如何解释宪法也因此成为审视违宪审查制度民主正当性的重要指标。作为当代司法保守主义的旗手,罗伯特·博克主张,宪法解释应当超越政治偏见和价值判断、回归宪法文本,以中立性为依归去推导、界定和适用原则。
The system of constitutional review in the United States has had a great significance in the history of human systems and has been widely followed in many countries. However, since Marbury v. Madison, how to overcome anti-multiple problems and solve Madison’s dilemma has always been an unavoidable issue of constitutional review. How to interpret the constitution has therefore become an important indicator of the democratic legitimacy of examining the constitutional review system. As the standard bearer of contemporary judicial conservatism, Robert Bock argues that constitutional interpretation should go beyond political prejudices and value judgments, return to the text of the Constitution, and derive, define, and apply the principle of neutrality.