什么是宪政?

   宪政犹如通往自由之桥

   南郭点评: 宪政,日益成为国人的日常话题,但何谓宪政?恐怕并非人人明白,简言 之,宪政即宪法至上,分权制衡限制政府权力,充分保障国民人权的政治体制.宪政与自由、法治、人权、独立司法、民主、共和密不可分。绝对权力的政府与宪政 政府的主要区别在于前者对政府权力没有任何有效力量制约，既无独立司法，也没有自由媒体，当然不存在法治，因而独裁当权者极易滥用权力随心所欲任意妄为， 极易成为专制暴政；后者则政府权力受到法治约束的分权制衡机制的调整，政府权力受到自由媒体全面监督制约，独立司法依法治原则裁断是非，维护公道，因而多 能维护社会正义与公道，较充分保障国民基本人权，人民生活自由快乐幸福。人对绝对权力似乎拥有永恒的爱好，无论君主，还是贵族寡头，或是纯民主政府概不能 外。“我即是国家！”法国路易十六世如是说；而1793年法国革命雅格滨设立的民主绝对权力也导致暴政；中共自1949年以降建立的则是党天下为特征的特 权寡头绝对权力，因而中共政权成为极权暴政是必然的。印证了阿克顿勋爵之＂绝对权力导致绝对腐败“的政治学定律的真理性。因此，无论是个人或是少数人还是 多数人的专制，都是对人民生命安全和幸福快乐人生的严重威胁，宪政的目标就在于防止政府的腐败保障公民的基本权利，因而必须限制制约政府的权力。宪政就是 政府必须按照由基本法（宪法）制定的制度和法律原则在最高法律授予的范围内行使权力，因此宪政即是专门研究如何有效限制制约政府权力的理论与实践。中共政 权之所以反动腐败无能，其根本原因之一正在于中共政权是个不受任何外部有效力量限制制约的绝对权力。为了全体国人切身根本长远利益，必须尽早抛弃推翻极端 反动腐败无能的中共极权专制暴政。

   Constitutional Government

   John Cameron Simonds.

    Determined by the quality or character of its power, government may be generally

    classified as either absolute or constitutional. Benjamin Constant, a publicist of the Restoration, defined absolute power "as the absence of rule. of limit, of definition:" as the absence of all limitation to supreme power, and "of all independent powers to form a counterpoise." Wherever lodged, absolute power is the same, and admits of no rule or limit from without. Whether in form a monarchy or democracy, its underlying principle is: "power is the only foundation of the right to wield it."

    No ancient statesman, writes Dr. Lieber, "ever doubted the extent of supreme power. If the people possessed it, no one ever hesitated in allowing to them absolute power over every one and over everything. If it passed from the people to the few, or was usurped by one, in many cases they considered the acquisition of power unlawful, but never doubted its unlimited extent." To this conception, in ancient Greece, may be ascribed the death of Socrates, and the banishment of Aristides. For monarchical government, it was expressed by Justinian in the words: "Whatever pleases the prince has the force of law;" and by Louis XIV. in his famous aphorism: "I am the state." In France, the Jacobin convention of 1793 was a striking example of democratic absolutism; as a political organization, it assumed omnipotent power, and in its name perpetrated heinous crimes against liberty and right.

    The very opposite of this is constitutional government; for the reason, its powers are exercised in accordance with a " system of fundamental laws and principles." The legitimate powers of such a government are those only which accord with its primary organization, and are consistent with its limitations and definitions,

    A constitution usually supplements existing institutions, wherein it is grounded; it presupposes an established order of things; as an organon of government, the instrument presumes certain personal and property rights which it is intended to define, to protect and to preserve. A constitution is, therefore, efficient in the precise degree to which it restrains the exercise of power, wherever lodged or however distributed.

    Essentially, then, whatever form a government may assume, it is constitutional only when instituted rights are protected by restrictions and guarantees. In the words of Francis Lieber: "Civil liberty does not exist when any one, or any two, or any three, or any thousand, or any million, can do what they have the mere power to do. Arbitrary power does not become less arbitrary because it is the united power of many."

    Again, it is barely sufficient to define a Constitutional government as one having a "system of fundamental rules, principles and ordinances." Even an Asiatic despotism must respect the customs, traditions and opinions of its subjects. It would be difficult to find a government so absolute that it could wholly disregard that which had become customary and habitual in a people.

    Venice was once a constitutional aristocracy, as indeed were all the so-called republics of northern Italy. Great Britain presents the best example of what may be designated a constitutional monarchy. However, in each of the instances above mentioned, some department of the state was above or without the constitution; in the Venetian state it was the directory, once so despotic and sanguinary, while in England, parliament is politically omnipotent.

    This is not the American idea of a constitution. In the United States, absolute power does not exist in any department of the government, whether state or federal. In other words, with us, all government is the creature of a constitution, which is the only legitimate source and measure of its power; as all powers not granted by that instrument are "reserved," our system of government is an express limitation upon the powers of political agents, who may be properly re- strained only when their authority is strictly construed. Particularly is this true of the general government. A latitudinarian construction of delegated authority must eventuate in an emasculation of reserved rights; while the form may remain, the spirit will have departed. To quote the illustrious Marshall: "To what purpose are powers limited and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing if those limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited or unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."

    The federal constitution, in its reservation to the states, respectively, of all powers not granted to the general government presents a strong barrier to both democratic absolutism and imperial sovereignty. In their autonomy, the several states are so many centres for opposition to either danger.

    Thus may communities, as well as individuals, be protected from the despotism of one or many. It has been repeatedly declared by the supreme court of the United States that "it is as gross usurpation, on the part of the federal government, to interfere with the reserved rights of the states by an exercise of powers not delegated, as it would be for a state to interpose its authority against a law of the union." The federal constitution, indeed, prohibits absolutism in every form and in whatever guise; for all and over all it has placed the supremacy of law. In brief, it was intended by the federal sys- tem to protect civil liberty, uphold state integrity, and preserve local autonomy. For this reason the general government can right- fully exercise only those powers expressly delegated by the constitution or by necessary implication from the powers specifically granted.

    To revolutionize the institutions about them was not the aim of the fathers. For them, institutions were prior to government, and would probably exist should the latter be abolished. In their opinion, government should supplement and not dominate social forces; regulate the movements of society and not seek to create them. Within the limits prescribed, institutions and laws could evolve out of the "masses of individual thought, which, like the waters of the ocean, are rolling evermore." With a provision for the curtailment or enlargement of constitutional powers by amendment, what excuse could be found for popular revolution on the one hand, or governmental usurpation on the other ?