两百余年“天衣无缝”的美国宪法自始至今却没有设计紧急状态条款,这导致紧急时刻美国总统往往行使“超宪法权限”侵涉公民基本权利,为保证危机中的宪法依然有效,作为制衡者的法院需要比常态下对宪法进行更加审慎地解释。然而,美国联邦最高法院的大法官们摒弃了遵循先例的普通法传统,在南北内战、一战、二战、反恐战争等紧急时期自由裁量了诸多敏感的宪法争议,但其所表现出来的实用主义政 The United States Constitution, which has been in existence for more than two hundred years and is “perfect”, has not designed an emergency clause so far, which has led to the U.S. President’s frequent exercise of “super constitutional authority” in an emergency and the invasion of the fundamental rights of citizens. In order to ensure that the constitution in a crisis remains Effectively, courts that serve as checks and balances need to interpret the constitution more cautiously than usual. However, the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States abandoned the precedent-based common law tradition and arbitrarily set aside many sensitive constitutional disputes during the emergency such as the civil war between the North and the South, World War I, World War II and the war on terror. However, the pragmatism Politics