World News 世界新闻 | | Forum 论坛 | | UK News 英国新闻 | | USA News 美国新闻 | | Global News 环球财经 | | Political News 政治新闻 | | Sci-Tech News 科技新闻 | | War & Terrorism News 战争与恐怖主义的新闻 | | Sports News 体育新闻 | | Multimedia 多媒体 | | Set Homepage 设为首页

Translate: 翻译：

Thursday, November 13th, 2008 星期四， 08年十一月13日

by通过 Roger Roots罗杰根 | Historians of Soviet Russia occasionally note that the communist workers’ paradise was originally intended to adhere to a written constitution that expressly guaranteed freedoms such as speech, press and assembly. |历史学家苏联偶尔指出，共产主义工人天堂的本意坚持成文宪法明文保障自由，如言论，新闻和集会。 In practice, however, none of the freedoms guaranteed in the Soviet constitution were recognized in the country’s legal system, and millions of dissenters and suspected dissenters were imprisoned or killed for disagreeing with the commissars of the state.然而，在实践中没有保障的自由在苏联宪法中承认该国的法律制度，以及数以百万计的持不同政见者和被怀疑持不同政见者被监禁或死亡的不同意委员的状态。

The United States Constitution, by contrast, is thought to be in美国宪法，相比之下，被认为是在 good standing良好的信誉 . 。 Yet there are numerous provisions of the US Constitution that are never enforced.然而，有许多规定，美国宪法是从来没有强迫。 These provisions, analogous to “dead letters” in the US Postal System, are either totally ignored by federal judges or given such a narrow construction that they might as well not exist.这些规定，类似的“一纸空文”的美国邮政系统，要么完全无视联邦法官或给予这样一个狭隘的建设，他们也可能不存在。 As columnist and curmudgeon Joseph Sobran正如专栏作家和curmudgeon约瑟夫Sobran has written已致函 , the Supreme Court has, in essence, exercised a “line-item veto” over the document, totally ignoring provisions that interfere with the justices’ national vision or social objectives. ，最高法院在本质上，实行了“线项目否决权”的文件，完全无视规定，干扰了法官的国家目标或社会目标。

When the Supreme Court switched to discretionary certiorari in 1925 (thus allowing the court to pick and choose its own docket), the Court paved the way for a highly selective treatment of the Constitution.当最高法院切换到自由裁量卷于1925年（从而使法院以选择自己的案件） ，法院铺平了道路高度选择性治疗宪法。 While some constitutional provisions (eg, the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment) are routinely accorded Supreme Court consideration, many others are almost completely ignored.虽然某些宪法条款（例如，第一修正案和第四次修订）经常给予最高法院的考虑，许多人几乎完全忽视。

It can hardly be a coincidence that all of the dead letters happen to place limitations on the scope and power of government.它可以几乎是一个巧合的是，所有的一纸空文发生地点限制的范围和权力的政府。 In contrast, the few provisions of the Constitution granting powers to government have been interpreted expansively.与此相反，一些宪法条款给予的权力，政府一直解释宽泛。 The clause giving Congress power to regulate interstate commerce, for example, has been interpreted by the courts to allow Congress to imprison people for acts that can be linked to either commerce or interstate activities only by a tenuous该条款给国会的权力，用以州际商业，例如，一直解释，法院允许国会监禁的人的行为，可与任何商业活动或州际只能由脆弱 series of conceptual inferences一系列的概念推论 . 。

There are even provisions which were included in the Constitution to limit government but which have now been interpreted to empower government.甚至有规定，被列入宪法，限制政府的，但现在已被解释为授权政府。 The Takings Clause, which states that no person shall be deprived of property “without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” was recently construed by the Supreme Court to give government at all levels near carte blanche power over all property.在征用条款，其中规定，任何人不得被剥夺财产“没有正当的法律程序;也不应私有财产应采取供市民使用，而公正的补偿” ，最近被认为由最高法院给各级政府附近无限权力，所有财产。 In a 2005 decision entitled在2005年题为决定 Kelo v. City of New London乐城诉新伦敦 , the Court reinterpreted the phrase “for public use” to mean for whatever use any government desires – including private use.法院重新改为“供公众使用”是指无论使用任何政府的欲望-包括私人使用。

Similarly, the Fifth Amendment Grand Jury clause was placed in the Constitution in order to limit government but has now been interpreted in a way that同样，第五修正案大陪审团的条款被安置在宪法，以限制政府，但现在已被解释的方式， empowers government政府授权 . 。 As the criminal law grew more complicated during the 1800s, courts began allowing public prosecutors to appear and discuss cases before grand juries (a practice strictly forbidden at the time of the Founding).由于刑法增长更复杂的19世纪期间，法院开始允许公诉人出庭和讨论案件的大陪审团（一种做法严格禁止的时候，建国） 。 This became embedded in grand jury practice by the 1900s.这成为植根于大陪审团的做法， 20世纪。 Today’s Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure state that prosecutors may be present before grand juries at all times and prohibit grand jurors from issuing independent presentments.今天的联邦规则的刑事诉讼法规定，检察官可以出席大陪审团面前在任何时候，禁止大陪审团发出独立presentments 。

There is nothing new about this insidious trend.有没有新的这种阴险的趋势。 The那个 Necessary and Proper必要和适当的 clause was originally intended to bind Congress to legislating only in ways that were “necessary” to carry out the few limited powers the national government had been granted.条款的本意约束国会立法的方式只能是“必要”进行权力有限几个国家政府已批准。 By the early nineteenth century, however, the Supreme Court had already interpreted “necessary and proper” to mean only “proper” – in the eyes of the government.到十九世纪初，但最高法院已解释“必要的和适当的”仅指“适当” -眼中的政府。 As Jefferson observed, “[t]he natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”正如杰斐逊指出， “ [吨]的进展，他自然的事情是自由的产量和政府获得地面。 ”

Courts have increasingly subjected all rights mentioned in the Constitution to balancing tests, meaning that rights have become mere interests to be balanced against the (always pressing) interests of government.法院已日益受到提到的所有权利在宪法中的平衡测试，这意味着权利已成为单纯的利益来权衡的（总是紧迫的）利益的政府。 Thus, it is asserted that “no rights are absolute” and that courts may deny the application of a right where “the Government’s regulatory interest in community safety因此，声称“没有任何权利是绝对的” ，并且法院可以拒绝适用权，其中“政府的管理兴趣社区安全

. 。 . 。 . 。 outweigh[s] an individual’s超过[西]个人的 liberty interest自由利益 .” However, the Supreme Court has abandoned any pretense of balancing tests with regard to governmental powers (such as those found in the Tax Clause or the Spending Clause), for which the Constitution’s provisions are described as 。 “然而，最高法院已放弃任何借口的平衡测试方面的政府权力（如发现税务条款或条款的开支） ，而宪法的规定被称为 plenary全体会议 . 。

Some rights enshrined in the Constitution are rendered dead by the lack of any remedy to enforce them.一些人权写入了宪法呈现死亡没有任何补救措施予以执行。 For example, in 1974, the Supreme Court held that no taxpayer ever has standing to challenge the例如，在1974年，最高法院认为，没有以往纳税人有资格挑战 secret budget of the CIA机密预算的中央情报局 (which clearly violates Article 1’s requirement that “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law; and a regular Statement and Account . . . of all public Money shall be published”). （这显然违反第1条的规定，即“没有钱应从财政部，但在拨款的后果所作的法律;和定期报表和帐户。 。 。的所有公共资金应予以公布” ） 。

Finally, there are newly invented “maxims” of law that have crept into modern jurisprudence by means of pronouncements that they are long-recognized.最后，有新发明的“格言”的法律，已经悄悄进入现代的判例的方式宣告，他们是长期的承认。 One such so-called maxim originated with Justice Stone’s “Footnote Four” in the 1938 case of这样一个所谓的格言源于司法斯通的“脚注”四在一千九百三十八案件 United States v. Carolene Products Company美国诉Carolene产品公司 . 。 Justice Stone proclaimed that most congressional enactments are “presumed constitutional” and will be struck down only if they blatantly contradict explicit constitutional protections.司法斯通宣布，大多数国会颁布的“推定宪法” ，将原来只有当他们公然违背明确的宪法保护。 Stone’s “presumption of validity” has been cited in dozens if not hundreds of appellate decisions to turn away constitutional challenges.斯通的“推定的效力”被称为数十甚至数百个上诉的决定，背离宪法的挑战。

As many scholars have pointed out, this “presumption of constitutionality” was enunciated nowhere in the many letters and speeches that punctuated ratification debates in the late 1700s.正如许多学者指出，这种“推定合宪”无处阐述的许多信件和讲话中不时批准的辩论中18世纪后期。 In fact, Founding-era voices more than occasionally expressed the opposite opinion.事实上，建国时代的声音超过偶尔表示相反的意见。 A widely-distributed editorial by Alexander White, a member of the First US Congress from Virginia, proclaimed (in opposition to proposals for a bill of rights) that “In America it is the governors not the governed that must produce their Bills of Rights: unless they can shew the charters under which they act, the people will not yield obedience.” Moreover, the Carolene Products presumption of validity can be said to overrule the plain text of the Ninth Amendment (”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”) as well as the Tenth Amendment (”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States . . . or to the people”).一种广泛分布的编辑亚历山大白，一名美国国会首先从弗吉尼亚州宣布（反对提案的权利法案）说， “在美国，它是不是省长管辖的，必须出示票据的权利：除非他们能蔡坚的章程规定，他们的行为，人民不会屈服于服从。 “此外， Carolene产品推定的效力，可以说推翻纯文字九届修正案（ ”列举在宪法中的某些权利不得被解释为否定或贬低他人所保留的人“ ） ，以及第十次修订（ ”没有的权力下放给美国宪法。 。 。是保留给国家。 。 。或人民“ ） 。

A list of other recently invented “maxims” would include (1) Justice Robert H. Jackson’s proclamation in 1949 that the Constitution is not a名单其他最近发明了“格言”将包括： （ 1 ）法官罗伯特杰克逊之于1949年宣布的宪法不是一个 “suicide pact” “自杀协议” (ie, it should never be interpreted to mean the government is not always in control), and (2) the doctrine of “harmless error” (invented in 1967 in （即，它不应该被解释为意味着政府并不总是控制）和（ 2 ）理论的“无害错误” （发明于1967年在 Chapman v. California加州查普曼诉 ) by which an appellate court may concede a constitutional violation but uphold a criminal conviction by proclaiming that the defendant would have been convicted even if the Constitution had been followed. ） ，其中上诉法院可能会承认违反了宪法，但坚持刑事定罪宣布，被告将已被定罪，即使宪法得到遵守。 There are also insidious doctrines such as也有阴险的理论，如 “sovereign immunity” “主权豁免” (which allows government agents to escape liability for illegal acts – on the ground that they are with the government) and the （允许政府官员逃避责任的非法行为-在地面上，他们与政府）和 “state secrets” “国家机密” doctrine (which deprives citizens of any redress by the assertion that proof of a constitutional violation would expose intelligence sources or methods), which are found nowhere in the text or the original understanding of the Constitution.理论（剥夺公民的任何补救的断言，证明违反宪法将暴露情报来源或方法） ，这是没有发现在文字或原始的理解宪法。

Of course, liberty dies incrementally, and the leviathanic government we see today took generations to bring about.当然，自由模具递增，并leviathanic政府今天我们看到了几代人带来。 It has been largely forgotten that the prohibition of intrastate liquor sales in the early twentieth century required a constitutional amendment (the Eighteenth) because policymakers and judges recognized that Congress had no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate sales of any commodity.它已基本忘记，州内禁止销售酒类20世纪初需要一个宪法修正案（第十八） ，因为决策者和法官承认，美国国会没有宪法权力来管制州际销售任何商品。 The Supreme Court even wrote in a 1932 decision that “sales of [ ] forbidden drugs qua sales” was “a matter entirely最高法院还写在1932年决定，即“销售[ ]禁止药品的销售条件”是“完全的问题 beyond the authority of Congress超越权威的美国国会 .” The recent 。 “最近 Gonzales v. Raich冈萨雷斯诉赖希 decision (upholding federal drugs laws as trumping California’s medical marijuana protections) highlights the fact that recent generations of Supreme Court justices have amended the Constitution without formal process.决定（维护联邦药品法律高于加州的医疗大麻保护）强调这样一个事实，最近几代的最高法院法官已经修改了宪法没有正式的进程。

A list of constitutional dead letters follows below.名单宪法一纸空文如下如下。 I honestly don’t know what weight to give some of the Bush Administration’s老实说，我不知道该怎么体重提供一些布什政府的 “unitary executive” “统一执行” practices such as its warrantless domestic eavesdropping and treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, which amount to complete abdications of the procedural rights laid out in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments.做法，如其授权国内窃听和治疗被关押在关塔那摩美军基地，这无异于完全abdications的程序性权利中规定的第4 ，第5 ，第6和第8修正案。 (If such matters are considered, it becomes arguable that the entirety of the Bill of Rights is a dead letter even if some of the rights are partially recognized for some people.) The list enumerated below, to paraphrase the dead-lettered Ninth Amendment, should not be considered all-inclusive, and there are, no doubt, other dead-lettered constitutional provisions I have neglected to identify. （如果这些问题被认为是，就有理由认为整个人权法案是一纸空文，即使某些权利的部分承认，有些人） 。名单列举如下，以意译死亡字母九届修订，不应被视为包容一切的，还有，毫无疑问，其他死亡字母宪法规定我有被忽视的确定。

• The House origination clause, Art.美国众议院起源条款，艺术。 1, § 7, requiring that all “Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,” has been rendered a dead letter by neglect. 1 ，第7 ，要求所有“法案提高收入应起源于众议院， ”已经作出了一纸空文的忽视。 As Congressman Ron Paul has pointed out, the 2008 bank bailout bill with all its tax implications was deliberately introduced in the Senate after House members rejected it – a plain violation of this clause.正如众议员罗恩保罗指出， 2008年银行纾困法案，其所有税收的影响是故意介绍了在参议院后，众议院议员拒绝-纯违反了这一条款。 Similar practices have gone on for many years.类似的做法已经持续了许多年。
• The congressional declaration of war clause, Art.国会宣战条款，艺术。 1, § 8. 1 ， § 8 。 No “war” in the constitutional sense has been declared since 1941, although the executive branch has engaged in numerous undeclared wars and military escapades around the globe.没有“战争”的宪法意识已被宣布为1941年以来，虽然行政部门进行了大量未申报的战争和军事冒险，遍布世界各地。
• The public accounting clause Art.公共会计条款艺术。 1, § 10: As already discussed, the secret budget of the CIA is in plain conflict with Article I of the Constitution (”No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time”). 1 ，第10条：正如已经讨论过的，机密预算的中央情报局是在平原冲突的第一条宪法（ “没有钱应从财政部，但在拨款的后果所作的法律;和定期报表和帐户的收入和支出的所有公共资金应予以公布不时“ ） 。
• The Legal Tender Clause, Art.投标的法律条款，艺术。 1, § 10, prohibiting states from making “any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” The application of the Federal Reserve Act and many other statutes and executive orders are in plain violation of this clause. 1 ， § 10 ，禁止国家决策“任何事情，但金银纪念币的投标中偿还债务。 ”适用联邦储备法和其他许多法规和行政命令是在平原违反这一条款。 State and Federal governments demand and provide payment in paper currencies that are unbacked by any precious metals.州政府和联邦政府的需求，并提供了支付货币的unbacked任何贵重金属。
• The prohibition against bills of attainder, Art.禁止汇票attainder ，艺术。 1, §10 – which was supposed to ensure that no one could ever be punished by the legislature – has been addressed only four times by the Supreme Court. 1 ，第10 -这是要确保任何人都不能予以处罚由立法机关-已解决只有4次由最高法院。 Congress regularly enacts new laws placing extrajudicial punishments on various groups (felons, convicted sex offenders, disfavored corporations such as Wal-Mart, and even entire industries (eg, “Big Tobacco”)).定期国会颁布新的法律处罚外放置在不同的群体（重罪犯，被定罪的性罪犯， disfavored公司，如沃尔玛，甚至整个行业的（例如， “大烟草” ） ） 。
• The Contract Clause, Art.该合同条款，艺术。 1, § 10, prohibiting states from impairing contractual obligations. 1 ， § 10 ，禁止损害国家履行合同义务。 Long dead and buried.龙死亡和被埋葬。 Today the federal courts uphold wage, work, production, pricing, licensing and advertising regulations of every manner, irrespective of the Contract Clause.今天，联邦法院坚持工资，工作，生产，定价，许可和广告法规的每一个方式，无论合同条款。
• The Second Amendment right to bear arms.第二项修正案权利，携带武器。 Despite the recent Heller decision (which issued a “landmark” ruling that the Amendment protects an individual right), there are still thousands of felons and other persons in federal prison for the mere possession of firearms.尽管最近海勒的决定（其中发表了“划时代的”执政，修订保护的个人权利） ，还有数以千计的罪犯和其他人在联邦监狱，仅仅拥有枪支。 No defendant has ever been released from prison or cleared of gun charges in federal court on account of judges recognizing the right to bear arms.没有被告人曾经从监狱中释放或清除枪支罪名在联邦法院的法官到正确的认识携带武器。 The gist of the Heller decision is that the Amendment protects a “reasonable” right to bear government-approved arms so long as you are government-approved.的精神海勒的决定，修订保护“合理的”权利，承担政府批准的武器，只要你是政府批准。 Of course, such a limited and conditional reading of the Second Amendment renders it a dead letter.当然，这样一个有限的和有条件的读第二修正案使其成为一纸空文。 The leaders of the American Revolution were themselves accused (and some convicted) felons, and several were notorious criminals (eg, John Hancock, an accused tax evader and smuggler; John Paul Jones, a twice-indicted murderer who adopted his name as an alias to avoid arrest).领导人的美国革命本身被告（和某些定罪）罪犯，几个被臭名昭著的罪犯（例如，约翰汉考克，被告税务evader和走私;约翰保罗琼斯两次起诉杀人犯谁通过了他的名字作为一个别名为了避免被逮捕） 。
• The Fifth Amendment Grand Jury clause.第五修正案大陪审团的条款。 While federal grand juries do still exist, they are now wholly subject to the control of federal prosecutors – the very persons the Clause was intended to limit.尽管联邦大陪审团也仍然存在，他们现在完全控制下的联邦检察官-非常人的条款是旨在限制。 The grand juries known to the Framers were civilian institutions that acted independently of prosecutors, could investigate prosecutors, and could indict prosecutors.在大陪审团已知的制定是平民机构，担任独立检察官，检察官可以调查，可以起诉检察官。 Today, prosecutors dispense all evidence, witnesses and testimony to the grand jurors, who then retire to a deliberation room to vote on whether to approve the prosecutors’ wishes.今天，检察机关免除所有证据，证人和证词向大陪审团，然后退役谁的房间审议表决是否批准检察官的愿望。 (A “no” vote will just mean that the prosecutors will coerce another grand jury to vote on the same case.) （甲说“不”投票将只是意味着该检察官将胁迫另一大陪审团表决同一案件。 ）
• The Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy clause.第五修正案双重危险条款。 Today, the federal government commonly charges defendants who have been previously charged with essentially the same offense in state court (and vice versa).今天，美国联邦政府指控被告共同谁此前已被控以基本相同的进攻在州法院（反之亦然） 。 This usually happens after an acquittal or a “light” sentence in the first prosecution.这通常发生后，被判无罪，或“光”一句中的首次起诉。 Because Congress has federalized almost every state crime over the past four decades (something the Founders could never have imagined), federal and state prosecutors are able to get two bites at the apple despite the double jeopardy clause.由于联邦国会几乎每一个国家的犯罪过去40年来（创办人永远无法想象） ，联邦和州检察官能够获得两个咬苹果时，尽管双重危险条款。
• The Sixth Amendment right to jury trial in criminal cases.第六次修订的权利陪审团审判的刑事案件。 My inclusion of this one may puzzle some readers, because thousands of jury trials take place in American courtrooms annually.我国列入这一难题之一可能有些读者，因为成千上万的陪审团的审判发生在审判美国每年。 But the right to jury trial has been stripped for the vast majority of criminal prosecutions.但是，权利陪审团审判被剥夺绝大多数的刑事检控。 Supreme Court rulings beginning in the late 1800s confined this right to cases of “serious” rather than “petty” crimes (ie, punishable by less than six months’ imprisonment).最高法院的裁决开始在1800年代末期局限于这一权利的案件， “严重” ，而不是“零用”罪行（即处以不少于6个月监禁） 。 This distinction exists nowhere in constitutional text, which explicitly guarantees a jury trial “[i]n all criminal prosecutions ” and for “all crimes.” The change has allowed government to impose its will on the populace with far greater efficiency.这种区别存在没有在宪法文本，其中明确保障陪审团审判“ [我] n的所有刑事起诉”和“所有罪行。 ”改变，使政府将其意志强加于民众具有深远更高的效率。 Justices Black and Douglas大法官布莱克和道格拉斯 observed in a 1970在观察1970年 concurrence that their colleagues on the Supreme Court had effectively amended the Constitution by applying a balancing test and that “[t]hose who wrote and adopted our Constitution and Bill of Rights engaged in all the balancing necessary.同意，他们的同事对最高法院有效地修正了宪法，运用平衡测试，并“ [吨]软管谁写信，并通过了我国宪法和人权法案进行的所有必要的平衡。 They decided that the value of a jury trial far outweighed its costs for ” all crimes” and “[i]n all criminal prosecutions.”他们决定的价值陪审团审判远远超过其成本的“所有罪行”和“ [我] n的所有刑事检控。 ”
• Of course, plea bargains have replaced jury trials in most “serious” cases, allowing government to prosecute and imprison a far higher proportion of the American population than the Framers could have anticipated.当然，认罪协议已经取代陪审团的审判中最“严重”的情况下，允许政府起诉和拘禁深远的比例较高，美国人口比成帧器可以预期的。 And even where defendants take their charges to trial, they are tried before emasculated juries that are ordered to follow the judges’ interpretations of the Constitution and the laws.即使被告采取收费进行审判，他们尝试过阉割的陪审团命令是按照法官解释宪法和法律。 The Founders would have condemned this wholesale takeover of juries by modern judges.创办人将谴责这一收购批发陪审团的现代法官。

• The Sixth Amendment vicinage clause (requiring an “impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed”).第六次修订邻居条款（需要一个“公正的陪审团的国家和地区，其中构成犯罪的，一直致力于” ） 。 In practice today, most federal court proceedings have been centralized into the largest urban areas of each federal court district, leaving rural defendants in many cases to face trials before urban juries drawn from jury districts that do not include the scene(s) of the alleged offense(s).今天在实践中，大多数联邦法院的诉讼程序已经集中到最大的城市地区的每个地区联邦法院，使农村被告在许多情况下，面对城市的审判陪审团面前取自陪审团区，不包括现场（ s ）的指控进攻（星期日） 。
• The Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds twenty dollars ($20).第七次修订权陪审团审判的民事情况下，争议金额超过21美元（ 20美元） 。 The eternal drive of government officials at every level to collect petty duties, traffic and parking tickets, fees and other tributes has necessitated that they circumvent the plain language of the Seventh Amendment.永恒的驱动器的政府官员在每一级收集零用职责，交通和停车票，手续费和其他属性有必要，他们绕过普通语言第七修正案。 Today the Seventh Amendment is one of three articles in the Bill of Rights not incorporated into state court practice by the Fourteenth Amendment.今天的第七次修订是在三个条款的人权法案没有纳入国家法院的做法，第十四修正案。 Even in federal courts, the civil remedies mandated by the Seventh Amendment are painted into an extremely narrow corner.即使在联邦法院的民事补救办法所规定的第七次修订是画成一个极其狭窄的角落。
• The Ninth Amendment protection of other “rights retained by the people.” As already discussed, this important provision, insisted upon by the Anti-Federalists in 1791, has been dead-lettered by a combination of judicial doctrines, maxims and sophistries that in essence leave the people with few or no reserved rights.第九届修正案保护的其他“保留权利的人。 ”正如已经讨论了这一重要规定，坚持由反联邦党人于1791年，已死亡字母的组合司法理论，格言和诡辩，在本质离开的人很少或根本没有保留的权利。
• The Tenth Amendment.第十修正案。 At the heart of the Supreme Court’s dead letter file is the abandonment of federalism in order to create a centralized regime run from Washington.在心脏最高法院的一纸空文文件是放弃联邦制，以便创建一个集中的政权从华盛顿。 Under the Founders’ intent, of course, each state was to retain its own sovereignty while the federal government was to act as the states’ mutual delegate in matters of foreign and interstate affairs.根据创办人的意图，当然，每个国家是保留自己的主权，而联邦政府是作为国家的相互委托事项的外交和国家间的事务。 The absence of this rule in the pre-amendment Constitution precipitated massive resistance across the colonies.如果没有这一规则在预审宪法修正案沉淀大规模抵抗整个殖民地。 Yet today the federal courts regard the Tenth Amendment as a quaint “truism” – a mere statement that the States get to keep whatever jurisdiction is not overtaken by the federal government.然而，今天联邦法院关于第十届修订作为一个古怪的“真理” -只是声明说，美国获得的任何管辖范围内保持不超过联邦政府。
• The Fourteenth Amendment Privileges and Immunities clause, which was intended to require states to recognize legal rights recognized by the federal government and other states, was mostly dead-lettered in 1873 in第十四修正案特权和豁免权的条款，其目的是要求各国承认的法律所承认的权利，联邦政府和其他国家，主要是死字母于1873年在 The Slaughterhouse Cases案件的屠场 , in which the Supreme Court held the provision applied primarily to freed slaves.中，最高法院的规定主要适用于释放奴隶。 In recent decades, courts have looked to the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause to replace the dead-lettered Privileges and Immunities clause.近几十年来，法院已经期待第十四修正案正当程序条款，以取代死亡字母特权和豁免权的条款。
• The Twenty-Seventh Amendment, which requires that “No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened,” has been第二十七届修正案，其中要求“没有法律不同的补偿服务的参议员和众议员应采取有效，直至选举的代表应进行干预， ”已 rendered a dead letter提供一纸空文 by means of the Supreme Court’s “standing” jurisprudence.通过最高法院的“资格”的判例。

Have Your Say: Constitutional Dead Letters 你说：宪法一纸空文
Please read our请仔细阅读我们的 posting guidelines before posting张贴在发布前的指导方针 . 。
Alternatively或者 you can discuss this report here你可以讨论这份报告在这里 . 。

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL引用网址

Name (required) 名称（必需）

Mail (will not be published) (required) 邮件（将不会被发表） （必填）

Website 网站

Related News 相关新闻

• Americans Wrong On Their Rights美国人错了他们的权利
• Wiretapping Subpoenas Lead to Constitutional Shutdown窃听传票导致宪法关机
• Supreme Court Limits Students’ Speech Rights最高法院限制学生权利的讲话
• Federal judge rules 2 Patriot Act provisions unconstitutional联邦法官第2爱国者法案的规定违宪
• Suit filed against US law on surveillance诉讼对美国的法律监督

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 13th, 2008 at 6:22 pm and is filed under本条目被张贴在星期四， 08年11月13号在下午6时22分，并提交下 Political News政治新闻 . 。 You can follow any responses to this entry through the您可以按照任何反应，这个项目通过 RSS 2.0 2.0 feed. You can饲料。您可以 leave a response留下一个反应 , or或 trackback引用 from your own site.从您自己的网站。

Loading ...载入中...

TOP NEWS DISCUSSIONS 头条新闻讨论

LATEST NEWS DISCUSSIONS 最新消息讨论

Activism & Protest News 积极与抗议新闻 | | Business News 商业新闻 | | Civil & Human Rights News 公民与人权新闻 | | Environmental News 环境新闻 | | Media News 媒体新闻 | | Globalisation News 全球化新闻 | | Web Development News Web开发新闻

ADVERTISEMENTS广告

SITE MAPS网站地图

7/7 7 / 7 Activism News能动新闻 Afghanistan阿富汗 Alternative-Energy替代能源 Art艺术 Barack Obama奥巴马 BBC英国广播公司 Big-Brother大兄弟 Bilderberg彼尔德伯格 Biometrics生物识别技术 Bush布什 CCTV中央电视台 Censorship检查 CIA美国中央情报局 Climate-Change气候变化 Cover-Up掩盖 Cults邪教 Culture文化 Database-State数据库的国家 David-Hicks大卫希克斯 David-Ray-Griffin大卫射线格里芬 Debt债务 Democrats民主党 Demos演示 Drugs药品 Education教育 Entertainment娱乐 Environmental News环境新闻 EU欧盟 False-Flag假旗 FBI美国联邦调查局 Fraud诈骗 Free-Speech自由言论 Freemasons济 G8八国集团 Global-News全球新闻 Global-News全球新闻 Globalization全球化 Guantanamo关塔那摩 Health-News健康新闻 History历史 ID-Cards编号卡 Internet互联网 Iran伊朗 Iraq伊拉克 Israel以色列 John McCain约翰麦凯恩 Law法 Marches游行 Media News媒体新闻 MI5军情五处 MI6军情六处 Microsoft微软 Military军事 MoD国防部 Money金钱 Music音乐 NASA美国宇航局 Neocons新保守主义 New World Order新的世界秩序 NSA国安局 Oil油 Pakistan巴基斯坦 Podcast播客 Police-State警察国家 Political News政治新闻 Propaganda中宣部 Reviews评语 RFID RFID技术 RINF Rumsfeld拉姆斯菲尔德 Science科学 Science & Technology News科技新闻 Secrecy保密 Security安全 Slavery奴隶制 Space空间 Sports体育 Spy间谍 Spying从事间谍活动 Stephen-Lendman斯蒂芬- Lendman Technology技术 Terrorism恐怖主义 Tony-Blair英国首相布莱尔 Torture酷刑 TV电视 UK-News英国新闻 UN联合国 USA-美国， USA-News美国新闻 Video视频 Voting投票 war战争 War & Terrorism News战争与恐怖主义的新闻 Warfare战 White-House白家 Wolfowitz沃尔福威茨 World_News Yahoo雅虎
2003 - 2005 Archives 2003至2005年档案 | 2005 - 2007 Archives 2005年-2 007年档案 | 2007 - 2008 Archives 2007 -2 008档案 | Current Archives目前档案馆 | Past Version |以往版本

About 大约 | | DVD Store DVD商店 | | Opinion 意见 | | Reviews 评语 | | Special Guests 特别来宾 | | Webmasters 网站管理员