第六篇

Judges, Democracy, and Natural Law

Though people on both sides regret for them, these annual summer disputes over Supreme^{1 Court nominees2 can be valuable exercises in civic3 education. The Robert Borkathon of 1987 forced millions of Americans to think about the role of a constitution in a democracy: the proper way to interpret 200-year-old phrases, the conflict between majority rule and inpidual freedom, and so on.}

This summer President Bushs ______ of Clarence Thomas has unexpectedly plunged^{4 the nation even deeper into the pool of first principles. America finds itself debating natural law. An enthusiasm for something called natural law is one of the repeated themes in Thomas slim collection of writings and speeches. What he means by natural law and what uses he would put it to as a life-tenured? Supreme Court Justice are not clear. This justifiably5 alarms some people, who are worried that natural law could become an excuse for a conser-vative judge to impose his political agenda just as conservatives have accused liberal judges of using pri-vacy to do the same thing.}

In fact, though, the two questions can be separated. Is there something called natural law? And is it a le-gitimate basis for judges to overrule the wishes of the majority as expressed in laws of a less elevated sort?

At this point in American history, the answer to the first question is beyond challenge. Yes, as far as the U.S. is concerned, natural law exists. The Laws of Nature are right there in the first sentence of the Declara-tion of Independence. The second and most famous sentence provides a perfect definition of natural law: human beings are endowed? by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, including Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Where do these rights come from? Some may have trouble with the concept of a pine creator. Others may find it overly metaphysical? to insist that every human being has these rights in a world where most people are plainly unfree to exercise them. But few can doubt that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are what a civilized^{6 society ought to strive to provide its members. As the Declaration says, that is the reason Govern-ments are instituted. It is self-evident. Thats good enough for me.}

But just because rights exist, this does not mean it is the role of judges to enforce them. The ______ of ju-dicial review the power of unelected judges to overrule the democratic branches of government is a funny business. Judges do not have that power in other major democracies, and it is not explicitly^{7 authorized8 in the U.S. Constitution. It emerges, rather, from the structure of our government. As Justice John Marshall first reasoned in Marbury vs. Madison : faced with a conflict between a law and a constitutional provision, judges must honor the Constitution. All government officials should do the same. The Supreme Courts inter-pretation of the Constitution is definitive9 only because procedurally it comes last.}

The Constitution lists certain rights, and others are implied in the structure of government it sets up. But nothing in the constitutional structure of the government gives the Supreme Court authority to overrule the other branches on the basis of unwritten natural law. Judicial^{10 review, a bold claim at first, is now so well established that weve come to feel that a right doesnt exist unless a judge can enforce it. But enforcing a right means interpreting it, and exclusive power to interpret a concept as vague as natural law should not be given to the unelected branch of government. The job of protecting our nonconstitutional rights belongs to those who most directly derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, as the Declara-tion has it: elected officials.}

The Declaration speaks of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Constitution refers more lit-erally to life, liberty, or property. Its an illuminating^{11 difference. Furthermore, the Constitution does not guar-antee these values in absolute terms. It protects them only from deprivation12 by the government itself, and even in that regard it promises only procedural fairness and equal treatment. The authors were surely wise to narrow the focus. What would be left of democracy if judges could roam the landscape striking down anything that in their opinion interfered13 with somebodys pursuit of happiness?}

All this is not to say that natural-law concepts have no role to play in constitutional interpretation^{14. Many people, for example, find it hard to understand why freedom of speech must be extended to Nazis15 and others who do not believe in free speech themselves and would deny it to others if they could. The answer is that the Bill of Rights is based on the theory of natural law, not on the alternative theory of a social contract. You are ______ to these rights simply because you are a human being, not because you have agreed, literally16 or meta-phorically, to honor them.}

Majestic^{17 phrases like due process of law require analysis. Even the strictest constructionists would ac-cept that the natural-law thinking of the 18th century is useful in pining the framers original intent.}

Some enthusiasts^{18 see the Ninth Amendment19 which provides that the list of rights in the Constitution shall not be interpreted to deny or disparage20 others retained by the people as a direct incorporation21 of natural law. The fact that these enthusiasts include would-be judicial activists22 of both the left and the right ought to dim the enthusiasm of both groups. The point is that the people do have rights not derived23 from the Constitu-tion natural rights, if you will but judges have no special authority to enforce those rights.}

Clarence Thomas may well be claiming no special authority for judges when he invokes^{24? natural law and natural rights. In that case, there is no problem. If he has more ambitious notions, there is a serious problem. And the fact that liberal Justices may have had overreaching notions of their own in the past is mere25 irony26.}

法官、民主与自然法

尽管两边人马都对每年夏季最高法院****官提名时的争执没好感，它其实大可以作为公民教育的宝贵教程。1987年因博卡桑被提名而引发的马拉松式争辩，迫使数百万美国人去考虑宪法在民主政体中所饰演的角色：200年前写下来的条文该怎么样解释，多数决定与个人自由之间的冲突又该怎么样调解。

今夏布什总统出人意料地提名托马斯，使全国愈加深陷于基本原则的泥沼。美国忽然间掀起了一股论辨自然法的风潮。托马斯其人论述不丰，可是对所谓自然法的热中是他书中反复出现的主题之一。到现在为止，没人了解他说的自然法到底是什么东西，与他当上了终身职的****官之后要如何运用自然法。也难怪有不少人会因此而感到不安了，他们担忧自然法会变成这位守旧派法官推行他政治计划的借口就仿佛守旧派过去指控自由派法官借助隐私权来达到同样的目的一样。

事实上，这两个问题可以分开来谈。第一，有没自然法这回事？第二，法官能否用自然法为充分的基础，来推翻较低位阶法律中所展示的多数人建议。

从美国历史进步至此来看，第一个问题的答案是确切无疑的。是的，在美国，自然法是存在的。在独立宣言头一句中自然的法则一语便道尽了所有。最有名的是第二个句子为自然法写下了完美的概念：造物主赋予人类没办法剥夺的权利，包含生命权、自由权，与追求幸福的权利。

这类权利从何而来？有的人可能很难同意神圣造物主的观念。而且，会有一些人觉得，假如说每个人与生俱来就拥有权利，然而，世界上却有大多数的人明显地不可以自由行使这类权利，那样这种说法未免也太空洞了。可是，极少有人会反对文明社会应该为它的人民设法提供生命、自由、与追求幸福的权利。好似独立宣言所称，那就是设立政府是什么原因所在。而这也是不辩自明的。我可以同意这种说法。

可是，权利存在，并不表示说法官就该饰演实行它的角色。司法复审的规范非民选的法官有权否决政府民选部门（行政、立法）的决定这是满奇怪的规范。其它主要民主国家的法官并没如此的权利，在美国宪法中也没明文授与法官这种权利。其实它是源于美国的政府结构。****官约翰? 马歇尔在《马伯里对麦迪逊案》（1803）中首度做出如此的推理：面对法律与宪法条约冲突时，法官应以宪法为重，其余所有些政府官员亦然。最高法院的释宪具备最高的权威，只由于它在程序上排在最后。

宪法中列举了一些权利出来，还有一些别的权利（比如投票权）是在宪法组成的政府架构中暗示存在的。可是政府的宪法结构中并没那一点可以赋予最高法院权利，令其仅凭不具文的自然法就足以翻推行政、立法部门的决定。司法复审在刚提出时是非常大胆的倡导，目前则已根深蒂固，大家甚至感觉除去法官可以实行的权利以外别无权利可言。可是实行一项权利表示实行者要解释权利的意思。像自然法这么模糊的定义，解释它的责任不可以完全交给政府中非民选的部门司法机关。哪个来保护大家宪法中未明言的权利？依据《独立宣言》所说，应该是最直接从被治理者手中获得权力者，也就是民选官员。

《独立宣言》说的是生命、自由、与追求幸福的权利。宪法则比较平实地提及生命、自由、或财产。这两者之间的差别颇具深意。而且，宪法中并不保障大家绝对拥有这类权利。它只不过保护这类权利不受政府本身的剥夺，而且即便在这一方面也只能保障程序的公平与平等待遇。宪法起草人把范围缩小是聪明的。假如法官可以四处横行，打倒所有只须他们觉得是妨碍某人追求幸福的事物，民主会变成什么面目？

如此说并不表示自然法的观念在释宪工作上没意义。比如，有很多人不知道，为何像纳粹这些的人，他们自己并不支持言论自由，而且还想尽方法剥夺其他人的言论自由，宪法居然也要保障他们的言论自由。这个道理在于：美国宪法修正案中保障言论等自由的人权条约是打造在自然法的理论上，而不是打造于另一种理论社会合约上。你享有这类权利，只由于你是人，不是由于你以文字或象征方法赞同要支持这类权利。

像正当法律程序这种庄严的词汇需要在文意上加以剖析。就连最坚持要狭义讲解宪法的人也会赞同，18世纪有关自然法的思想能够帮助推断立宪者的原意。

有一些热中人士觉得宪法第九修正案就是直接把自然法纳入宪法的法源。这条修正案表示，宪法中列举出来的权利不能被解释为此外人民就不拥有其它的权利，或者其它的权利就不受看重。可是，这类热中人士当中包含了左右两派的司法活跃分子这一点就足以让两边人马冷却一下。重点在于：人民确实拥有非源于宪法的权利喜欢的话你可以叫它自然权利可是法官并没特别的职权可以实行这类权利。

托马斯提及自然法与自然权利时，可能并没倡导法官有特别的职权。若是如此的话，所有就都没问题。假如他的野心尚不仅于此，那样问题就紧急了。至于以前自由派的法官自己也会和托马斯一样，过去有非分的念头，这只是一大讽刺罢了。