World News 世界新聞 | | Forum 論壇 | | UK News 英國新聞 | | USA News 美國新聞 | | Global News 環球財經 | | Political News 政治新聞 | | Sci-Tech News 科技新聞 | | War & Terrorism News 戰爭與恐怖主義的新聞 | | Sports News 體育新聞 | | Multimedia 多媒體 | | Set Homepage 設為首頁

Translate: 翻譯：

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

by通過 Roger Roots羅傑根 | 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. |歷史學家蘇聯偶爾指出，共產主義工人天堂的本意堅持成文憲法明文保障自由，如言論，新聞和集會。 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，在實踐中沒有保障的自由在蘇聯憲法中承認該國的法律制度，以及數以百萬計的持不同政見者和被懷疑持不同政見者被監禁或死亡的不同意委員的狀態。

The United States Constitution, by contrast, is thought to be in美國憲法，相比之下，被認為是在 good standing良好的信譽 . 。 Yet there are numerous provisions of the US Constitution that are never enforced.然而，有許多規定，美國憲法是從來沒有強迫。 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.這些規定，類似的“一紙空文”的美國郵政系統，要么完全無視聯邦法官或給予這樣一個狹隘的建設，他們也可能不存在。 As columnist and curmudgeon Joseph Sobran正如專欄作家和curmudgeon約瑟夫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. ，最高法院在本質上，實行了“線項目否決權”的文件，完全無視規定，干擾了法官的國家目標或社會目標。

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.當最高法院切換到自由裁量卷於1925年（從而使法院以選擇自己的案件） ，法院鋪平了道路高度選擇性治療憲法。 While some constitutional provisions (eg, the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment) are routinely accorded Supreme Court consideration, many others are almost completely ignored.雖然某些憲法條款（例如，第一修正案和第四次修訂）經常給予最高法院的考慮，許多人幾乎完全忽視。

It can hardly be a coincidence that all of the dead letters happen to place limitations on the scope and power of government.它可以幾乎是一個巧合的是，所有的一紙空文發生地點限制的範圍和權力的政府。 In contrast, the few provisions of the Constitution granting powers to government have been interpreted expansively.與此相反，一些憲法條款給予的權力，政府一直解釋寬泛。 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該條款給國會的權力，用以州際商業，例如，一直解釋，法院允許國會監禁的人的行為，可與任何商業活動或州際只能由脆弱 series of conceptual inferences一系列的概念推論 . 。

There are even provisions which were included in the Constitution to limit government but which have now been interpreted to empower government.甚至有規定，被列入憲法，限制政府的，但現在已被解釋為授權政府。 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.在徵用條款，其中規定，任何人不得被剝奪財產“沒有正當的法律程序;也不應私有財產應採取供市民使用，而公正的補償” ，最近被認為由最高法院給各級政府附近無限權力，所有財產。 In a 2005 decision entitled在2005年題為決定 Kelo v. City of New London樂城訴新倫敦 , the Court reinterpreted the phrase “for public use” to mean for whatever use any government desires – including private use.法院重新改為“供公眾使用”是指無論使用任何政府的慾望-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同樣，第五修正案大陪審團的條款被安置在憲法，以限制政府，但現在已被解釋的方式， empowers government政府授權 . 。 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).由於刑法增長更複雜的19世紀期間，法院開始允許公訴人出庭和討論案件的大陪審團（一種做法嚴格禁止的時候，建國） 。 This became embedded in grand jury practice by the 1900s.這成為植根於大陪審團的做法， 20世紀。 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.今天的聯邦規則的刑事訴訟法規定，檢察官可以出席大陪審團面前在任何時候，禁止大陪審團發出獨立presentments 。

There is nothing new about this insidious trend.有沒有新的這種陰險的趨勢。 The那個 Necessary and Proper必要和適當的 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.條款的本意約束國會立法的方式只能是“必要”進行權力有限幾個國家政府已批准。 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.到十九世紀初，但最高法院已解釋“必要的和適當的”僅指“適當” -眼中的政府。 As Jefferson observed, “[t]he natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”正如杰斐遜指出， “ [噸]的進展，他自然的事情是自由的產量和政府獲得地面。 ”

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權利在憲法中的平衡測試，這意味著權利已成為單純的利益來權衡的（總是緊迫的）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，聲稱“沒有任何權利是絕對的” ，並且法院可以拒絕適用權，其中“政府的管理興趣社區安全

. 。 . 。 . 。 outweigh[s] an individual’s超過[西]個人的 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，最高法院已放棄任何藉口的平衡測試方面的政府權力（如發現稅務條款或條款的開支） ，而憲法的規定被稱為 plenary全體會議 . 。

Some rights enshrined in the Constitution are rendered dead by the lack of any remedy to enforce them.一些人權寫入了憲法呈現死亡沒有任何補救措施予以執行。 For example, in 1974, the Supreme Court held that no taxpayer ever has standing to challenge the例如，在1974年，最高法院認為，沒有以往納稅人有資格挑戰 secret budget of the CIA機密預算的中央情報局 (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”). （這顯然違反第1條的規定，即“沒有錢應從財政部，但在撥款的後果所作的法律;和定期報表和帳戶。 。 。的所有公共資金應予以公佈” ） 。

Finally, there are newly invented “maxims” of law that have crept into modern jurisprudence by means of pronouncements that they are long-recognized.最後，有新發明的“格言”的法律，已經悄悄進入現代的判例的方式宣告，他們是長期的承認。 One such so-called maxim originated with Justice Stone’s “Footnote Four” in the 1938 case of這樣一個所謂的格言源於司法斯通的“腳註”四在一九三八案件 United States v. Carolene Products Company美國訴Carolene產品公司 . 。 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，大多數國會頒布的“推定憲法” ，將原來只有當他們公然違背明確的憲法保護。 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”被稱為數十甚至數百個上訴的決定，背離憲法的挑戰。

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.正如許多學者指出，這種“推定合憲”無處闡述的許多信件和講話中不時批准的辯論中18世紀後期。 In fact, Founding-era voices more than occasionally expressed the opposite opinion.事實上，建國時代的聲音超過偶爾表示相反的意見。 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”).一種廣泛分佈的編輯亞歷山大白，一名美國國會首先從弗吉尼亞州宣布（反對提案的權利法案）說， “在美國，它是不是省長管轄的，必須出示票據的權利：除非他們能蔡堅的章程規定，他們的行為，人民不會屈服於服從。 “此外， Carolene產品推定的效力，可以說推翻純文字九屆修正案（ ”列舉在憲法中的某些權利不得被解釋為否定或貶低他人所保留的人“ ） ，以及第十次修訂（ ”沒有的權力下放給美國憲法。 。 。是保留給國家。 。 。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名單其他最近發明了“格言”將包括： （ 1 ）法官羅伯特傑克遜之於1949年宣布的憲法不是一個 “suicide pact” “自殺協議” (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，它不應該被解釋為意味著政府並不總是控制）和（ 2 ）理論的“無害錯誤” （發明於1967年在 Chapman v. California加州查普曼訴 ) 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. ） ，其中上訴法院可能會承認違反了憲法，但堅持刑事定罪宣布，被告將已被定罪，即使憲法得到遵守。 There are also insidious doctrines such as也有陰險的理論，如 “sovereign immunity” “主權豁免” (which allows government agents to escape liability for illegal acts – on the ground that they are with the government) and the （允許政府官員逃避責任的非法行為-在地面上，他們與政府）和 “state secrets” “國家機密” 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.理論（剝奪公民的任何補救的斷言，證明違反憲法將暴露情報來源或方法） ，這是沒有發現在文字或原始的理解憲法。

Of course, liberty dies incrementally, and the leviathanic government we see today took generations to bring about.當然，自由模具遞增，並leviathanic政府今天我們看到了幾代人帶來。 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.它已基本忘記，州內禁止銷售酒類20世紀初需要一個憲法修正案（第十八） ，因為決策者和法官承認，美國國會沒有憲法權力來管制州際銷售任何商品。 The Supreme Court even wrote in a 1932 decision that “sales of [ ] forbidden drugs qua sales” was “a matter entirely最高法院還寫在1932年決定，即“銷售[ ]禁止藥品的銷售條件”是“完全的問題 beyond the authority of Congress超越權威的美國國會 .” The recent 。 “最近 Gonzales v. Raich岡薩雷斯訴賴希 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.決定（維護聯邦藥品法律高於加州的醫療大麻保護）強調這樣一個事實，最近幾代的最高法院法官已經修改了憲法沒有正式的進程。

A list of constitutional dead letters follows below.名單憲法一紙空文如下如下。 I honestly don’t know what weight to give some of the Bush Administration’s老實說，我不知道該怎麼體重提供一些布什政府的 “unitary executive” “統一執行” 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，如其授權國內竊聽和治療被關押在關塔那摩美軍基地，這無異於完全abdications的程序性權利中規定的第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. （如果這些問題被認為是，就有理由認為整個人權法案是一紙空文，即使某些權利的部分承認，有些人） 。名單列舉如下，以意譯死亡字母九屆修訂，不應被視為包容一切的，還有，毫無疑問，其他死亡字母憲法規定我有被忽視的確定。

• The House origination clause, Art.美國眾議院起源條款，藝術。 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“法案提高收入應起源於眾議院， ”已經作出了一紙空文的忽視。 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.正如眾議員羅恩保羅指出， 2008年銀行紓困法案，其所有稅收的影響是故意介紹了在參議院後，眾議院議員拒絕-純違反了這一條款。 Similar practices have gone on for many years.類似的做法已經持續了許多年。
• The congressional declaration of war clause, Art.國會宣戰條款，藝術。 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.沒有“戰爭”的憲法意識已被宣布為1941年以來，雖然行政部門進行了大量未申報的戰爭和軍事冒險，遍布世界各地。
• The public accounting clause Art.公共會計條款藝術。 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條：正如已經討論過的，機密預算的中央情報局是在平原衝突的第一條憲法（ “沒有錢應從財政部，但在撥款的後果所作的法律;和定期報表和帳戶的收入和支出的所有公共資金應予以公佈不時“ ） 。
• The Legal Tender Clause, Art.投標的法律條款，藝術。 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 ，禁止國家決策“任何事情，但金銀紀念幣的投標中償還債務。 ”適用聯邦儲備法和其他許多法規和行政命令是在平原違反這一條款。 State and Federal governments demand and provide payment in paper currencies that are unbacked by any precious metals.州政府和聯邦政府的需求，並提供了支付貨幣的unbacked任何貴重金屬。
• The prohibition against bills of attainder, Art.禁止匯票attainder ，藝術。 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 -這是要確保任何人都不能予以處罰由立法機關-已解決只有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”)).定期國會頒布新的法律處罰外放置在不同的群體（重罪犯，被定罪的性罪犯， disfavored公司，如沃爾瑪，甚至整個行業的（例如， “大煙草” ） ） 。
• The Contract Clause, Art.該合同條款，藝術。 1, § 10, prohibiting states from impairing contractual obligations. 1 ， § 10 ，禁止損害國家履行合同義務。 Long dead and buried.龍死亡和被埋葬。 Today the federal courts uphold wage, work, production, pricing, licensing and advertising regulations of every manner, irrespective of the Contract Clause.今天，聯邦法院堅持工資，工作，生產，定價，許可和廣告法規的每一個方式，無論合同條款。
• The Second Amendment right to bear arms.第二項修正案權利，攜帶武器。 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.儘管最近海勒的決定（其中發表了“劃時代的”執政，修訂保護的個人權利） ，還有數以千計的罪犯和其他人在聯邦監獄，僅僅擁有槍支。 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.沒有被告人曾經從監獄中釋放或清除槍支罪名在聯邦法院的法官到正確的認識攜帶武器。 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.的精神海勒的決定，修訂保護“合理的”權利，承擔政府批准的武器，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.當然，這樣一個有限的和有條件的讀第二修正案使其成為一紙空文。 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).領導人的美國革命本身被告（和某些定罪）罪犯，幾個被臭名昭著的罪犯（例如，約翰漢考克，被告稅務evader和走私;約翰保羅瓊斯兩次起訴殺人犯誰通過了他的名字作為一個別名為了避免被逮捕） 。
• The Fifth Amendment Grand Jury clause.第五修正案大陪審團的條款。 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.儘管聯邦大陪審團也仍然存在，他們現在完全控制下的聯邦檢察官-非常人的條款是旨在限制。 The grand juries known to the Framers were civilian institutions that acted independently of prosecutors, could investigate prosecutors, and could indict prosecutors.在大陪審團已知的制定是平民機構，擔任獨立檢察官，檢察官可以調查，可以起訴檢察官。 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，檢察機關免除所有證據，證人和證詞向大陪審團，然後退役誰的房間審議表決是否批准檢察官的願望。 (A “no” vote will just mean that the prosecutors will coerce another grand jury to vote on the same case.) （甲說“不”投票將只是意味著該檢察官將脅迫另一大陪審團表決同一案件。 ）
• The Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy clause.第五修正案雙重危險條款。 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，美國聯邦政府指控被告共同誰此前已被控以基本相同的進攻在州法院（反之亦然） 。 This usually happens after an acquittal or a “light” sentence in the first prosecution.這通常發生後，被判無罪，或“光”一句中的首次起訴。 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.由於聯邦國會幾乎每一個國家的犯罪過去40年來（創辦人永遠無法想像） ，聯邦和州檢察官能夠獲得兩個咬蘋果時，儘管雙重危險條款。
• The Sixth Amendment right to jury trial in criminal cases.第六次修訂的權利陪審團審判的刑事案件。 My inclusion of this one may puzzle some readers, because thousands of jury trials take place in American courtrooms annually.我國列入這一難題之一可能有些讀者，因為成千上萬的陪審團的審判發生在審判美國每年。 But the right to jury trial has been stripped for the vast majority of criminal prosecutions.但是，權利陪審團審判被剝奪絕大多數的刑事檢控。 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).最高法院的裁決開始在1800年代末期局限於這一權利的案件， “嚴重” ，而不是“零用”罪行（即處以不少於6個月監禁） 。 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.這種區別存在沒有在憲法文本，其中明確保障陪審團審判“ [我] n的所有刑事起訴”和“所有罪行。 ”改變，使政府將其意志強加於民眾具有深遠更高的效率。 Justices Black and Douglas大法官布萊克和道格拉斯 observed in a 1970在觀察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，他們的同事對最高法院有效地修正了憲法，運用平衡測試，並“ [噸]軟管誰寫信，並通過了我國憲法和人權法案進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.”他們決定的價值陪審團審判遠遠超過其成本的“所有罪行”和“ [我] n的所有刑事檢控。 ”
• 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.當然，認罪協議已經取代陪審團的審判中最“嚴重”的情況下，允許政府起訴和拘禁深遠的比例較高，美國人口比成幀器可以預期的。 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.即使被告採取收費進行審判，他們嘗試過閹割的陪審團命令是按照法官解釋憲法和法律。 The Founders would have condemned this wholesale takeover of juries by modern judges.創辦人將譴責這一收購批發陪審團的現代法官。

• The Sixth Amendment vicinage clause (requiring an “impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed”).第六次修訂鄰居條款（需要一個“公正的陪審團的國家和地區，其中構成犯罪的，一直致力於” ） 。 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).今天在實踐中，大多數聯邦法院的訴訟程序已經集中到最大的城市地區的每個地區聯邦法院，使農村被告在許多情況下，面對城市的審判陪審團面前取自陪審團區，不包括現場（ s ）的指控進攻（星期日） 。
• The Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds twenty dollars ($20).第七次修訂權陪審團審判的民事情況下，爭議金額超過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.永恆的驅動器的政府官員在每一級收集零用職責，交通和停車票，手續費和其他屬性有必要，他們繞過普通語言第七修正案。 Today the Seventh Amendment is one of three articles in the Bill of Rights not incorporated into state court practice by the Fourteenth Amendment.今天的第七次修訂是在三個條款的人權法案沒有納入國家法院的做法，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.即使在聯邦法院的民事補救辦法所規定的第七次修訂是畫成一個極其狹窄的角落。
• 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.第九屆修正案保護的其他“保留權利的人。 ”正如已經討論了這一重要規定，堅持由反聯邦黨人於1791年，已死亡字母的組合司法理論，格言和詭辯，在本質離開的人很少或根本沒有保留的權利。
• 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.在心臟最高法院的一紙空文文件是放棄聯邦制，以便創建一個集中的政權從華盛頓。 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.根據創辦人的意圖，當然，每個國家是保留自己的主權，而聯邦政府是作為國家的相互委託事項的外交和國家間的事務。 The absence of this rule in the pre-amendment Constitution precipitated massive resistance across the colonies.如果沒有這一規則在預審憲法修正案沉澱大規模抵抗整個殖民地。 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，今天聯邦法院關於第十屆修訂作為一個古怪的“真理” -只是聲明說，美國獲得的任何管轄範圍內保持不超過聯邦政府。
• 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第十四修正案特權和豁免權的條款，其目的是要求各國承認的法律所承認的權利，聯邦政府和其他國家，主要是死字母於1873年在 The Slaughterhouse Cases案件的屠場 , in which the Supreme Court held the provision applied primarily to freed slaves.中，最高法院的規定主要適用於釋放奴隸。 In recent decades, courts have looked to the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause to replace the dead-lettered Privileges and Immunities clause.近幾十年來，法院已經期待第十四修正案正當程序條款，以取代死亡字母特權和豁免權的條款。
• 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第二十七屆修正案，其中要求“沒有法律不同的補償服務的參議員和眾議員應採取有效，直至選舉的代表應進行干預， ”已 rendered a dead letter提供一紙空文 by means of the Supreme Court’s “standing” jurisprudence.通過最高法院的“資格”的判例。

Have Your Say: Constitutional Dead Letters 你說：憲法一紙空文
Please read our請仔細閱讀我們的 posting guidelines before posting張貼在發布前的指導方針 . 。
Alternatively或者 you can discuss this report here你可以討論這份報告在這裡 . 。

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL引用網址

Name (required) 名稱（必需）

Mail (will not be published) (required) 郵件（將不會被發表） （必填）

Website 網站

Related News 相關新聞

• Americans Wrong On Their Rights美國人錯了他們的權利
• Wiretapping Subpoenas Lead to Constitutional Shutdown竊聽傳票導致憲法關機
• Supreme Court Limits Students’ Speech Rights最高法院限制學生權利的講話
• Federal judge rules 2 Patriot Act provisions unconstitutional聯邦法官第2愛國者法案的規定違憲
• Suit filed against US law on surveillance訴訟對美國的法律監督

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 13th, 2008 at 6:22 pm and is filed under本條目被張貼在星期四， 08年11月13號在下午6時22分，並提交下 Political News政治新聞 . 。 You can follow any responses to this entry through the您可以按照任何反應，這個項目通過 RSS 2.0 2.0 feed. You can飼料。您可以 leave a response留下一個反應 , or或 trackback引用 from your own site.從您自己的網站。

Loading ...載入中...

TOP NEWS DISCUSSIONS 頭條新聞討論

LATEST NEWS DISCUSSIONS 最新消息討論

Activism & Protest News 積極與抗議新聞 | | Business News 商業新聞 | | Civil & Human Rights News 公民與人權新聞 | | Environmental News 環境新聞 | | Media News 媒體新聞 | | Globalisation News 全球化新聞 | | Web Development News Web開發新聞

ADVERTISEMENTS廣告

SITE MAPS網站地圖

7/7 7 / 7 Activism News能動新聞 Afghanistan阿富汗 Alternative-Energy替代能源 Art藝術 Barack Obama奧巴馬 BBC英國廣播公司 Big-Brother大兄弟 Bilderberg彼爾德伯格 Biometrics生物識別技術 Bush布什 CCTV中央電視台 Censorship檢查 CIA美國中央情報局 Climate-Change氣候變化 Cover-Up掩蓋 Cults邪教 Culture文化 Database-State數據庫的國家 David-Hicks大衛希克斯 David-Ray-Griffin大衛射線格里芬 Debt債務 Democrats民主黨 Demos演示 Drugs藥品 Education教育 Entertainment娛樂 Environmental News環境新聞 EU歐盟 False-Flag假旗 FBI美國聯邦調查局 Fraud詐騙 Free-Speech自由言論 Freemasons濟 G8八國集團 Global-News全球新聞 Global-News全球新聞 Globalization全球化 Guantanamo關塔那摩 Health-News健康新聞 History歷史 ID-Cards編號卡 Internet互聯網 Iran伊朗 Iraq伊拉克 Israel以色列 John McCain約翰麥凱恩 Law法 Marches遊行 Media News媒體新聞 MI5軍情五處 MI6軍情六處 Microsoft微軟 Military軍事 MoD國防部 Money金錢 Music音樂 NASA美國宇航局 Neocons新保守主義 New World Order新的世界秩序 NSA國安局 Oil油 Pakistan巴基斯坦 Podcast播客 Police-State警察國家 Political News政治新聞 Propaganda中宣部 Reviews評語 RFID RFID技術 RINF Rumsfeld拉姆斯菲爾德 Science科學 Science & Technology News科技新聞 Secrecy保密 Security安全 Slavery奴隸制 Space空間 Sports體育 Spy間諜 Spying從事間諜活動 Stephen-Lendman斯蒂芬- Lendman Technology技術 Terrorism恐怖主義 Tony-Blair英國首相布萊爾 Torture酷刑 TV電視 UK-News英國新聞 UN聯合國 USA-美國， USA-News美國新聞 Video視頻 Voting投票 war戰爭 War & Terrorism News戰爭與恐怖主義的新聞 Warfare戰 White-House白家 Wolfowitz沃爾福威茨 World_News Yahoo雅虎
2003 - 2005 Archives 2003至2005年檔案 | 2005 - 2007 Archives 2005年-2 007年檔案 | 2007 - 2008 Archives 2007 -2 008檔案 | Current Archives目前檔案館 | Past Version |以往版本

About 大約 | | DVD Store DVD商店 | | Opinion 意見 | | Reviews 評語 | | Special Guests 特別來賓 | | Webmasters 網站管理員