论文部分内容阅读
本文总结并评论了美国联邦最高法院在审查国会贸易权力的系列判决中使用的司法标准。本文发现,以1937年为界,该判决脉络清晰地呈现出“州际贸易性质”和“实质性影响”先后两种审查标准,这两种标准是对州际贸易条款完全不同的解读。虽然“实质性影响”标准遭遇一些批评,但笔者基于两个原因认可联邦最高法院的转向。一是同联邦最高法院一样,笔者认为面对经济大萧条与政治机构的强烈反应,不得不确信当时的社会现实迫切需要联邦政府的调控,不能满足这种迫切需要的标准应当让步;二是州际贸易条款的确为最高法院的转向提供了空间,“实质性影响”标准是贸易条款无法剥离的含义,而且未从根本上违背联邦主义原则。我们可以从中得到的一项“应然性”启示是,在中央与地方的权力划分问题上,我们不应该死守一条想象中的僵化的界线,而应该尊重立法实验的结果。
This article summarizes and comments on the judicial standards used by the Supreme Court of the United States in a series of judgments of parliamentary powers of review. This article finds that in 1937 the judgments clearly showed two kinds of review criteria: “the nature of interstate commerce” and “substantive influence”. These two standards are completely different from the articles of interstate commerce Interpretation. Although some critiques of the “material impact” standard have been accepted, the author recognizes the shift of the federal Supreme Court for two reasons. First, like the Supreme Court of the Federation, I believe that in the face of the strong reaction of the Great Depression and the political institutions, I have no choice but to believe that the social reality of the time urgently needed the regulation of the federal government and that the standards that could not meet this pressing need should be concessions. Second, The terms of international trade do provide room for the Supreme Court’s turnaround. The “material effect” criterion is the imposition of a trade clause that can not be diverted and does not fundamentally violate the principle of federalism. The enlightenment we can draw from this is that we should not cling to an imaginary rigid boundary on the issue of the division of powers between the central government and the local authorities but should respect the outcome of the legislative experiment.