结论

　　

　　美国宪法稳定性不是一个历史事实，而是一个政治想象。这一点本文已经论证。但需要说明的是，历史事实和政治想象并非相互排斥。相反，两者共同构成了美国宪政想象的整体结构。正是因为有了历史断裂，统一性和稳定性的宪法断裂才更为重要和珍贵。宪法稳定性的政治想象有如装潢。通过装潢，美国宪政大厦的内在断裂才能在外表上看起来浑然一体。美国宪法稳定性的想象将所有的历史革命断裂扮成不断推进的宪法改革。所谓“宪法改革”的玄妙之处在于如何将巨大的宪法变化化于平淡。

　　

　　问题在于我们如何看待美国宪政。对于外在于美国宪政的观察者而言，我们似乎应该保持人类学家的超脱。这种超脱不仅仅意味着戳穿美国宪法稳定性的神话。如果是用历史叙述来戳穿它的话，这等于介入了美国宪政自身内部的辩论：美国宪法学界和实务界已经有大量的论述来为美国民众的宪法信仰去魅。如果介入了美国宪政内部的辩论，那么我们就有可能无法冷静地观察。或许我们应该将美国宪政看做一个柏拉图意义上的洞穴：我们需要做的是观察该洞穴的结构和洞穴内人的信念。这要求我们，既不要将该洞穴当成天堂，也不要将其当成地狱。

　　

　　剩下的问题是，中国人是否应该像美国人一样膜拜美国宪法？或者将问题缩小一点：中国宪政学者是否应该像美国民众一样膜拜美国宪法？

　　

　　这些问题，已经是另外一篇文章的题目了。

【作者简介】
刘晗，耶鲁大学法律科学博士（J.S.D.）候选人。
【注释】 此类文献很多，代表性的参见：蔡定剑：“中国宪法司法化路径探索”，载《法学研究》2005年第5期；王磊：《宪法司法化》，中国政法大学2000年版；翟小波：“代议制机关至上，还是司法化？”，载《中外法学》2006年第4期；强世功：“宪法司法化的悖论——兼论法学家在推动宪政中的困境”，载《中国社会科学》2003年第2期；强世功：”谁来解释宪法？——从宪法文本看我国的二元违宪审查体制”，载《中外法学》2003年第5期。
参见，王向明：“美国宪法的稳定性和特点”，载《政治与法律》1988年第2期；刘一纯：“美国宪法稳定性的反思”，载《湖北大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2002年第6期；孔庆山：“简论美国宪法的超稳定机制”，载《渤海大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2004年第5期；梁敏、吕文江：“稳定的宪法与妥协的宪法-以美国宪法为例”，载《山东社会科学》2006年第2期；江振春：“模糊语言学视角下的美国宪法稳定性”， 载《学术界》2007年第4期。
See Bruce Ackerman, The Future of Liberal Revolution, Yale University Press, 1992, P16 :The longevity of the Constitution is often seen as testimony to the stability of American society-but mistakenly so. Modern Americans tell themselves stories that assert the deep continuity of two centuries of constitutional practice, narratives that thoroughly enmesh todays events in a web of constitutional reference stretching back two hundred years to the Founding. While the French have run through five republics since 1789, we have lived in only one. ; David Barrows, The Constitution as an Element of Stability in American Life, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 185, pp1-10 (1936).
比如拉美国家就试图通过移植美国宪法来造就国家稳定和富强，虽然最终归于失败。其中，关于墨西哥的讨论，See Alexis Tocqueville, Decmocracy in America, Mansfield and Winthrop trans., University of Chicago Press, 2000.
See e.g., Morton Keller, Americas Three Regimes, Oxford University Press, 2007.
但近来新的研究展示光荣革命才是现代革命的起源，并且光荣革命是一次真正的革命。See Steve Pincus, 1688: the First Modern Revolution, Yale Universtity Press, 2009.
比如在拉美的很多国家，每一次总统大选都变成潜在的革命。See Juan Linz, The Failure of Presidential Democracy: Comparative perspectives, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
See Hannah Arendt, On Revolution, Penguin Books, 1977, P139: “When they declared their independence from this government, and after they had foresworn their allegiance to the crown, the main question for them was not how to limit power but how to establish it, not how to limit government but how to found a new one.
See Paul Kahn, Putting Liberalism in its Place, Princeton University Press, 2005, P265: For the modern state, the act that brings it into existence is revolution.
关于“政治想象”的概念，See Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, Duke University Press, 2004.
近来国内学界对于美国司法审查的讨论已经开始转向司法与政治的关系问题。讨论美国司法审查的多数主义问题即是一个例子，参见何海波，“多数主义的法院”，载《清华法学》2009年第6期。该讨论虽然抓住了重点的事物，但却没有抓住事物的重点。
关于“政治-法律”视角，See Larry Kramer, The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review, Oxford Universtity Press, 2004, P24. 中译本参见，克莱默:《人民自己》，田雷译，译林出版社2010年版，即出。
See Hannah Arendt, On Revolution, Penguin Books, 1977, P 171.
See Edmond Morgan, The Second American Revolution, The New York Rreview of Books, 6.25.1992; Charles Beard, The Economic Origin of the American Constitution, Courier Dover Publications, 2004.
See Gordon Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, Vintage, 1993.
See e.g., Susan Dunn, Sister Revolutions: French Lightning, American Light, Macmillan, 2000.
See e.g., Gary Nash, The Unknown American Revolution : The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create Amerca, Penguin Group, 2004.
See Abraham Lincoln, “Speech in Independence Hall, Feb. 22 1861”, in Abraham Lincoln, Slavery, and the Civil War: Selected Writings and Speeches, M. Johnson ed., 2001, P107.
Emory Thomas, The Confederacy as a Revolutionary Experience, Univ. of South Carolina Press, 1991; George Rable, The Confederate Republic: A Revolution against Politics, Univ. Of North Carolina Press, 1994.
See e.g., Catherine Bowen, Miracle at Philadelphia, Little Brown, 1966.
See The Articles of Confederation (1781), XIII: And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.
See Bruce Ackerman, Revolution on a Human Scale, 108 Yale L.J. P2279-2349.
See Paul Kahn, Sacred Violence: Torture, Terror and Sovereignty University of Michigan Press, 2008, P123-124.
See Susan Dunn, Jeffersons Second Revolution, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004. 如果能够比较一下美国的二次革命和中国的二次革命，比较孙中山和杰弗逊的革命行动，会是一项非常有意思的研究。
在美国宪政史的研究中，1800年被严重低估了。就连美国学界也是如此：对于1800年以及美利坚共和国早期宪政的研究也是最近几年才开始变成热门题目。See Jeffrey L. Pasley, et al., eds., ed., Beyond the Founders: New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic.Ferling, John , The University of North Carolina Press, 2004; John Ferling, Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, Oxford University Press, 2004; Edward Larson, A Magnificent Catastrophe: the Tumultuous Election of 1800, Americas First Presidential Campaign, Free Press, 2007.
阿克曼教授认为，美国在建国初期的二十年内差点就有了三部宪法，跟法国历史上的宪法变动也差不多。See Bruce Ackerman, The Future of Liberal Revolution, Yale University Press, 1992, P4.
按1787年宪法规定，每位总统选举人投下两张总统选票，得票最高者当选总统，次者为副总统。民主共和党原本计划让一名选举人将其中一票弃权，只投一票给杰斐逊，这样可以使得杰斐逊比伯尔多得一票，使他们分别成为总统与副总统。 但实际上，所有选举人都投下了两张选票，导致两人同获73张选举人票。宪法条文上的解决方案是，众议院从二人中选出总统来。但当时的众议院由联邦党人所控 制，他们大多不愿选择杰斐逊，而宁愿推举伯尔。因此众议院投票陷入僵局，投票进行了35轮之后仍然未能选出总统。在联邦党人亚历山大·汉密尔顿的游说下，在第36轮投票中部分联邦党人改变了主意，才将杰斐逊送上总统宝座。
随后杰弗逊进一步掌控了国会。失势的联邦党人开始押宝在司法系统。在政治斗争中失败的联邦党人退居司法领域，继续与杰弗逊党人进行斗争。1801年1月20日，亚当斯任命原国务卿马歇尔为最高法院首席大法官。2月4日， 马歇尔宣誓就职，但仍然继续履行国务卿职责。2月13日，联邦党人国会通过1801年司法法案，创设了16个新的中间法院的职位。亚当斯随即任命了这些法官。继而，马伯里被亚当斯任命为华盛顿特区的治安法官，并在亚当斯离任前为参议院所确认。但马伯里从未就任。亚当斯签署的委任状并非寄出。麦迪逊担任国务卿之后，不愿发出该委任状。因此在杰弗逊开始就任总统之后，马伯里将案子起诉到最高法院，要求麦迪逊签发委任状。这就是有名的马伯里诉麦迪逊案，Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)。
See Bruce Ackerman, The Failure of the Founding Fathers, Harvard University Press, 2005, P3-6.
See The Federalists, E. Earle ed., The Modern Library, 1937, P52-62.
See R. Matthews, The Radical Politics of Thomas Jefferson: A Revisionist View 125(1984); Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William S. Smith(November 13, 1787), in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, J. Boyd ed., 1955, P355-57; Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison(Septermber 6, 1789), in the Portable Thomas Jefferson, M. Peterson ed., 1975, P444-51.
See Bruce Ackerman, The Future of Liberal Revolution, Yale University Press, 1992, P7.
See Paul Kahn, The Reign of Law: Marbury v. Madison and the Construction of America, Yale Universtity Press, 1997.
See James Banner, To the Hartford Convention, Knopf, 1970.
关于联邦党人分离运动的详细论述，请参见拙作，The Northern Confederacy, 未刊稿
这也是美国宪政史上一直争论不休的问题。最近的一个体现是United States v. Lopez , 514. U.S. 549(1995)。关于这一问题详细论述参见Daniel Farber, Lincons Constitution, University of Chicago Press, 2003, P26-44.
See The Ordinance of South Carolina, in Edward Powrell, Nullification and Secession in the United States, University of Michigan Library, 2009, 287.
See Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address, athttp://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettncem/gncaddress.htm> 最后访问时间2010年1月27日。
See Akhil Amar, Americas Constitution: A Biography, Knopf, 2005, P364-380.
See Bruce Ackerman, Constitutional Politics/Constitutional Law, 99 Yale L.J.503(1989).
See Donald Livingston, The Very Idea of Secession, Vol.35 No.5,Society, (1998), P38-48.
See George Fletcher, Our Secret Constitution, Oxford University Press, 2003.
In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (1895).
See Owen Fiss, Troubled Beginnings of the Modern State 1888-1910, Cambridge University Press, 2006, P53.
See Richard Epstein, A Common Law for Labor Relations: A Critique of the New Deal Labor Legislation, 92 Yale. L.J. P1357-1408(1983)..
See Bruce Ackerman, We the People: Transformations, Harvard University Press, 1995, P279-312.
See Cass Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDRs Unfinished Revolution, Basic Books, 2006.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
See Gerald Rosenberg, The Hollow Hope: Can the Court Bring About Social Change?, University of Chicago Press, 1991.
See Risa Goluboff, The Lost Promise of Civil Rights, Harvard University Press, 2008.
See Bruce Ackerman, The Living Constitution, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 1737 (2007), P1757-1792.
See Bruce Ackerman, The Living Constitution, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 1737 (2007), P1807.
See Akhil Amar, Americas Constitution: A Biography, Knopf, 2005,
这体现在popular constitutionalism学派中。See Larry Kramer, The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review, Oxford Universtity Press, 2004
See e.g., Bruce Ackerman, We the People: Foundations, Belknap Press,1993.
See William Connolly, Appearance and Reality in Politics, CUP Achive, 1981.
See Paul Kahn, The Reign of Law: Marbury v. Madison and the Construction of America, Yale Universtity Press, 1997, P10.
See Paul Kahn, The Reign of Law: Marbury v. Madison and the Construction of America, Yale Universtity Press, 1997, P49-74; Hannah Arendt, On Revolution, Penguin Books, 1977.
See Paul Kahn, Putting Liberalism in its Place, Princeton University Press, 2008, P265: The revolutionary breach is the paradigmatic political act, successfully creating a new identity by identifying an enemy. It breaks the bonds of authority by which the polity is subordinate to a political power that is now conceived as external to the poeple themselves, regardless of whether that power is actually a foreign state.
See Paul Kahn, Putting Liberalism in its Place, Princeton University Press, 2008, P266: A civil war may appear to an outsider as a contest between factions, but from within the nation-state, it will appear as a contest over the locus of the popular sovereign-that is, each side will purport not just to represent but to be the People.
See Anthony Kronman, The Lost Lawyer, Harvard University Press, 1995, P53-108.
Alexis Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Mansfield and Winthrop trans., The University of Chicago Press, 2000, P55.
See Bruce Ackerman, The Future of Liberal Revolution, Yale University Press, 1992, P30: The American revolutionaries also established models of legitimate revolutionary activity that shaped the theory and practice of subsequent generations, for better or for worse.
See Bruce Ackerman, The Future of Liberal Revolution, Yale University Press, 1992, P14: The lower lawmaking track is intended to register the successful conclusions of pluralist democratic politics-the mix of interest group pressure, regular electioneering, and practical policymaking that characterizes the democratic polity most of the time. The higher lawmaking track, in contrast, is designed with would-be revolutionaries in mind..
See Jon Elster,Ulysses Unbound, Cambridge University Press, 2000; Stephen Holmes, Precommitment and the Paradox of Democracy, in Passions and Restraints, University of Chicago Press, 1995, P134-177.
See Paul Kahn, Legitimacy and History: Self-Government in American Constitutional Theory, Yale University Press, 1992.
See Paul Kahn, Putting Liberalism in its Place, Princeton University Press, 2008, P263:Revolutionary opposition is always pursued in the name of the people. Modernity could not be the age of peoples republics without validating a revolutionary tradition that always makes possible a challenge to the governments claim to represent the popular sovereign.在这个意义上，辛亥革命以来的中国宪政动荡史不应该被理解为例外，而恰恰是革命建国的现代共和制国家的常态。相反，美国这样被认为是宪政稳定的国家恰恰是例外。
See Carl Schmitt, Political Theology, G. Schwab trans. MIT Press, 1985, ; Robert Burt, American Constitutional Law and the Teaching of Parables, 93Yale L.J.455-502(1984).
See Paul Kahn, Putting Liberalism in its Place, Princeton University Press, 2008, P268.
See Edward Corwin, The Constitution as Instrument and as Symbol, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 30, No. 6 (Dec., 1936), P1071-1085; Max Lerner, Constitution and Court as Symbols, 46 Yale L.J.1290(1937).
Thomas Grey, The Constitution as Scripture, 37 Stan. L.R. 1(1984).
See Robert Cover, Foreword: Nomos and Narrative, 97 Harv. L. Rev. 4(1983).
See Amar, The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction, Yale University Press, 1998.
See e.g., Jack Balkin, Framework Orignalism and The Living Constitution, 103 Nw. L. Rev. 549 (2009).
See Ronald Dworkin, Laws Empire, Harvard University Press, 1988.
See Davison Douglas,“The Rhetorical Uses of Marbury v.Madison:The Emergence of a ‘Grea tCase,’”38Wake For.L.Rev. 375(2003), P387–407.该文通过考证发现，马伯里案在整个十九世纪默默无闻，只是到了二十世纪之后才逐渐成为经典案例，为人津津乐道。
See Paul Kahn, The Reign of Law: Marbury v. Madison and the Construction of America, Yale Universtity Press, 1997, P10: Marbury seeks to displace a politics of revolution by the rule of law. 10The Courts claim that ours is to be a government of law does not reflect a fact; it states an ambition, a point from which it will enter a contest of political meaning. Marbury, then, represents the judicial contestation of the meaning of American political life in response to Jeffersons successful electoral campaign to wage a new revolution. Revolution and law continue to occupy the American political imagination as competing, yet related, forces.
这方面的研究最经典的是Keith Whittington, Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy, Princeton University Press, 2007.
两者的区分参见Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, G.Schwab trans., University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Alexander Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, Yale University Press, 1962, P16-23.
Alexander Bickel, The Morality of Consent, Yale University Press, 1975, P25, P89.
Alexander Bickel, The Morality of Consent, Yale University Press, 1975, P3.
See the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2.
See Paul Kahn, The Reign of Law: Marbury v. Madison and the Construction of America, Yale Universtity Press, 1997, P169.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) , at2816.
Ibid, at 2814
See Sanford Levinson, Constitutional Faith, Princeton University Press, 1989, P155-179.
See Paul Kahn, The Reign of Law: Marbury v. Madison and the Construction of America, Yale Universtity Press, 1997, P206-229.
See Ernst Kantorowitcz, The Kings Two Bodies, Princeton University Press, 1997.
Ibid, 42-86.
Edmund Burke, Reflection on the French Revolution, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd,1955, P31.
关于美国的认同焦虑，See Samuel Hungtington, Who Are We? :The Challenges to American National Identity, Simon and Schuster, 2004.
See David Barrows, The Constitution as an Element of Stability in American Life, Vol. 185, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2 (1936);
See Patrick Weil, Qu est ce quun fran?ais ? Histoire de la nationalité fran?aise depuis la Révolution, Paris, Grasset, 2002. (forthcoming in English as How to be French? A Nationality in the Making since 1789, from Duke University Press). 感谢Partick Weil教授在这点上的提示。
参见甘阳：《通三统》，三联书店2007年版。
See Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic, Princeton University Press, 2010, forthcoming.

第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 页 共[8]页