【作者】 夏泽祥；

【导师】 范进学；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 美国宪法第九修正案自1791年生效以来,先后得到国内多数州宪法和世界上许多国家(地区)宪法、国际人权公约的仿效,保障未列举权利已经成为当代宪法发展的趋势之一。但是,美国宪法第九修正案的司法性实施在最高法院内部和理论界都引发了经久不息的争议。这些争议包括：(1)原本设想为只能适用于联邦政府的第九修正案可否适用于州政府；(2)第九修正案是否应当由法院予以实施：(3)第九修正案究竟是权利推定条款还是对政府权力进行限制性解释的规则；(4)未列举权利的性质是什么；(5)第九修正案与“正当法律程序条款”相比究竟哪个更适宜充当未列举权利的确认依据,等等。本文在对第九修正案的诞生背景、过程和历史境遇进行梳理的基础上,运用历史分析、文本分析、价值分析、比较研究等方法对上述问题进行了探讨。第一章介绍了第九修正案的诞生背景。第九修正案是为了弥补“权利法案”中的前8条修正案不能对公民权利进行详尽列举的不足而产生的,“权利法案”则是为了弥补1787年宪法(草案)仅有权力列举而无“权利法案”的缺陷而产生的,而1787年宪法(草案)又是为了纠正《邦联条款》所确立的“州权独立,邦联无权”的政治体制而产生的。按照《邦联条款》而成立的软弱无力的邦联政府不能解决美国建国之初所面临的内政外交难题,故以汉密尔顿、麦迪逊为首的联邦党人遂筹划起草了旨在建立一个强大的中央政府的1787年宪法(草案)。但是,该宪法(草案)缺少一部“权利法案”,这种宪法模式由于违反了殖民地时期形成的在成文宪法中附加权利法案的制宪传统而遭到了强烈的反对。为了保证3/4以上的州制宪会议能够批准宪法(草案),联邦党人承诺在宪法(草案)获得通过以后再附加一部“权利法案”。第二章对第九修正案的诞生过程及生效后的历史境遇进行了梳理。在各州召开批准会议期间,弗吉尼亚等8个州提出了包括“权利法案”(草案)在内的宪法修正案草案,共186条。1789年6月麦迪逊在这些修正案草案的基础上,向第一届国会提出了“权利法案”草案,共9条,其中有5条得到了批准。经过文字处理后,这5条提案于1791年12月变成了后来的“权利法案”(共10条)。这5条提案中的第4.条原本是关于“权利保留”和“权力保留”的规定,经过文字处理后一分为二,形成了第九、十修正案。第九修正案生效后的历史境遇大致可以分为三个时期：(1)休眠期(1791—1965)。在1965年的Griswold v. Connecticut案之前,联邦最高法院一直把第九修正案看作是限制联邦权力的扩张、保障州自治权的工具而非保障个人权利的工具,这种解释使第九修正案与第十修正案在功能上发生混同。这个时期,第九修正案也几乎没有受到学术界的关注。(2)最高法院与学术界双重关注时期(1965—2000)。最高法院在Griswold v. Connecticut案中的多数意见首次依据第九修正案推导出已婚夫妇的隐私权,激活了作为权利保障条款的第九修正案。截止到2000年的Troxel v. Granville案,最高法院不仅一度发明了“第九修正案权利”的称谓,而且个别大法官在一系列案件中经常提及第九修正案。与此同时,学术界也对第九修正案开展了热烈的研讨。(3)仅仅受学术界关注时期(2000-)。自Troxel v. Granville案之后,最高法院的大法官们从未提及第九修正案,只有学术界在关注第九修正案,有美国学者认为第九修正案作为一个权利保障条款再次冬眠了。第三章对第九修正案的理论渊源进行了论述。在欧洲的诸多思想家中,对美国建国之初的宪法理论起了直接影响的是洛克的“自然权利—社会契约”学说和爱德华啊克的普通法思想。这两种思想学说的结合在实践中产生的一个效果是,在“权利法案”诞生之前,某些州法院已经开始诉诸自然法来界定自然权利,并通过限制行政权和立法权来保护自然权利。与此同时,“建国者们”也将自然权利写进了《独立宣言》、《邦联条款》以及为1787年宪法(草案)的完善而起草的宪法修正案。麦迪逊起草的第九修正案草案中的语句other rights retained by the people所指称的当然是自然权利。所以,第九修正案是对自然权利的表达。第四章是对第九修正案文本的解读。第九修正案是美国宪法文本中最具有开放性的条款,中国读者对其字义存在着形形色色的理解。在美国读者中,对于能否从第九修正案中推导出公民的未列举权利则存在着“否定说”与“肯定说”的对立。本文在对第九修正案的汉语表达方式进行探讨的基础上,证成了“肯定说”,将第九修正案视为“权利推定条款”,同时认为,第九修正案虽然为未列举权利的确认提供了文本依据,但为了防范法院自由裁量权的过度行使,第九修正案只宜作为未列举权利的间接来源,法院可以把宪法的其它条款、普通法、州法作为未列举权利的直接来源。第九修正案为法院从这些直接法源中认定未列举权利提供了合法性。第五章以Griswold v. Connecticut案为例,对第九修正案是否应当由法院实施以及第九修正案的空间效力范围进行了探讨。Griswold v. Connecticut案是联邦最高法院援引第九修正案确认未列举权利的第一个案件,同时也引发了两点质疑：(1)由非民选的法院实施第九修正案对民选机关所制定的法律进行违宪审查是否有违民主、法治原则?按照麦迪逊、汉密尔顿等人的论述,“权利法案”应当由最少危险的司法部门来实施,以避免“多数主义暴政”的危险。从司法权的性质来看,司法机关比立法机关更胜任制度性判断,而且由司法机关解释宪法也符合普通法传统。从实践角度看,由司法机关解释宪法的“释宪式宪法演进模式”比由立法机关修改宪法的“立宪式宪法演进模式”更有利于维护宪法的稳定性。因此,由法院来实施第九修正案并宣布立法机关的法律违宪也许并不违反民主、法治原则,而是有正当性的。(2)原本用于防范联邦政府的第九修正案是否可以适用于州政府?在“权利法案”制定之时,州政府被视为公民权利的捍卫者,而联邦政府的管理被视为一种“外来的统治”。在这个意义上可以断定,第九修正案仅适用于联邦政府的观点符合“制宪者意图”。但历史表明,州政府和联邦政府都会侵害公民权利,因此,对第九修正案的解释应当符合这种客观情势,即第九修正案既可适用联邦政府也可适用于州政府。第六章对第九修正案与“正当法律程序条款”的权利推定功能进行了比较。在Griswold v. Connecticut案中,最高法院的多数大法官们以第九修正案为主要依据确认婚姻隐私权的做法由于存在着过度行使自由裁量权的嫌疑而受到了少数派大法官和学术界的批评。在认定其它未列举权利时,最高法院的大法官们逐渐转向对“正当法律程序条款”的援引而对第九修正案避而不谈,这被某些学者视为“实体性正当程序”原则的复兴。但是,最高法院的这种做法招致了更为激烈的批评。首先是“实体性正当程序”的称谓本身存在矛盾,其次是试图从“正当法律程序条款”中的“自由”概念中推导出“权利”违反了“宪法权利”与“宪法自由”之间的源流关系。同时,以“正当法律程序条款”为依据认定未列举权利同样存在着过度行使自由裁量权的嫌疑。因此,一个可能的结论是,第九修正案比“正当法律程序条款”更适宜充当未列举权利的文本依据。第七章对第九修正案权利的范围和性质进行了分析,并对认定这种权利的方法和判断标准进行了论述。第九修正案所指称的未列举权利包括宪法主文、“权利法案”(前8条修正案)、已经生效并且继续有效的其它16条修正案中明确列举的权利以及从其中关于权力的禁止性规定中推导出来的那些权利。从性质上来说,未列举权利既包括消极权利也包括积极权利,这些权利是个人权利而非集体权利,是基本权利而非所有的权利自由。法院在认定未列举权利时,如果运用原旨主义方法、文本主义方法、山东大学博士学位论文建构性的方法、推定的方法、综合的方法等方法,可以在某种程度上减轻滥用自由裁量权的嫌疑。一项未列举权利如果得到了当代社会绝大多数人的认同,或者为国际人权公约所确认,则应当认为法院对该项权利的确认具有了客观性。第八章对第九修正案的未来命运进行了评估。最高法院的态度对于第九修正案的命运具有决定性的影响。尽管自2000年的Troxel v.Granville案之后,最高法院对第九修正案避而不提,但这并不意味着21世纪是第九修正案被尘封的时代。从最高法院现有大法官们的教育背景、职业经历、司法哲学倾向、文本主义的复兴等因素来看,当社会上产生某种未列举权利请求而需要最高法院提供宪法保护时,个别大法官仍有可能援引第九修正案对这种权利需求进行确认和保障。第九章论述了美国宪法第九修正案对我国实施“人权条款”的启示。构建和谐社会的关键是保障公民权利,宪法列举的和未列举的公民权利都应当得到保障。由于未列举权利的保障较之列举权利的保障更为复杂,且我国无经验可循,故需借鉴外国的经验。美国宪法第九修正案的效力机制表明,未列举权利请求的提出、违宪审查制度的确立、自然权利学说的传播是未列举权利条款得以实施的必要条件。积极发掘并传播具有本土特色的人权文化,进一步完善宪法监督制度使之发挥人权保障功能,根据人权保障的现实需要对“人权条款”作出合理化解释,我国“人权条款”才有可能得到实施。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since it came into effect in 1791, the Ninth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution had been copied both by constitutions of vast majority of the states domestically and many countries abroad and by "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" and "International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights", which indicates that it’s one of the modern trends of constitutional development to protect unenumerated rights. But the judicial enforcement of the Ninth Amendment has caused prolonged debates including the follows:(1) whether the Ninth Amendment which was intended to apply to the federal government is applicable to the state governments? (2) whether the Ninth Amendment ought to be applied by the court? (3) Is the Ninth Amendment a right-presumption provision or a rule of construction that confirms that the federal government is one of limited powers? (4) What kind of rights are unenumerated rights in their nature? (5) Whether the Ninth Amendment or the "due process clause of law" is more suitable for the basis of identifying the unenumerated right? This dissertation, resorting to such methods as historical analysis, textual analysis, axiological analysis and comparative analysis, discusses those questions above after a review of the Ninth Amendment’s formulation background, formulation process and its historical circumstances.Chapter 1 is an introduction of the Ninth Amendment’s formulation background. The Ninth Amendment was made to remedy the shortcoming of the "Bill of Rights" that its first 8 amendments could not exhaust all the fundamental rights of the people; The "Bill of Rights" was introduced to remedy the shortcoming of the drafted Constitution (1787) that it enumerated all the powers delegated to the government but lacked a declaration of rights; While the drafted Constitution (1787) was drafted to correct the political system of "the state sovereignty independent, the Confederation no power" that was founded on the basis of the Articles of Confederation(1777). The drafted Constitution(1787)was intended as the basis for a powerful central government by Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, but it caused fierce opposition against its ratification for its lack of a declaration of rights, because it is a constitutional tradition formed in the colony era that the written constitution should include a declaration of rights. In order that 3/4 of the 13 states Ratification Conventions may pass the drafted Constitution (1787), the Federalists promised to add a declaration of rights to it after its passage.Chapter 2 is a review of the Ninth Amendment’s formulation process and its historical circumstances. During the Ratification Convention period, Virginia and other 7 states put forward 186 clauses of proposed amendments including proposed bill of rights, on the basis of which Madison, in June,1789, introduced to the First Congress a proposed "Bill of Rights" of 9 clauses among which only 5 clauses were adopted. After wording disposition, those 5 clauses became the later "Bill of Rights" (including 10 clauses) in December, 1791. The original contents of "retained rights" and "retained powers" contained in the 4th among the 5 clauses turned respectively into present AmendmentⅨand AmendmentⅩ. The Ninth Amendment’s historical circumstances after its passage can be divided into 3 periods:(1)The hibernation period(1791—1965). Before Griswold v. Connecticut(1965), the Ninth Amendment had been described by the Supreme Court as a rule limiting the interpreted scope of federal power in order to preserve state regulatory autonomy, not as a provision protecting individual rights. This kind of interpretation resulted in a functional confusion between the Ninth and Tenth Amendment, and the former was replaced functionally by the latter. During this period, academic circles paid least attention to the Ninth Amendment. (2) The period that the Ninth Amendment drew double attention from the Supreme Court and academic circles (1965—2000). In Griswold v. Connecticut(1965), the majority opinions of the Supreme Court inferred the unenumerated marital privacy right from the Ninth Amendment which was activated as a "right protection clause" for the first time. Up to Troxel v. Granville (2000), not only had the term "the Ninth Amendment Right" once been invented by the Supreme Court, but also had the Ninth Amendment been mentioned by some justices in a series of cases. Simultaneously, the Ninth Amendment had been discussed warmly in the academic circles. (3) The period that the Ninth Amendment drew unilateral attention from the academic circles (2000—). Since Troxel v. Granville (2000), the Supreme Court had never mentioned the Ninth Amendment, while only the academic circles had been discussing the Ninth Amendment, thus some American scholars say that the Ninth Amendment, as a right protection clause, has hibernated once again.Chapter 3 is a discussion about the Ninth Amendment’s theoretical source. Among the European thinkers, it was John Locke, whose "Natural Rights-Social Compact Theory", and Edward Coke, whose "Common Law Thought", that influenced the Founders’ constitutional idea directly. Before the emergence of the "Bill of Rights" (1791), some state courts began resorting to natural law to define natural rights and protected them through limitation of legislative and executive powers. Meanwhile, the Founders put the term "natural right(s)" into Declaration of Independence (1776), Articles of Confederation (1777) and the proposed amendments to the drafted Constitution (1787). To what does the phrase "other rights retained by the people", in Madison’s proposed amendments, refer is naturally natural rights. Therefore, the Ninth Amendment is a description of natural rights.Chapter 4 is a literal reading of the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment’s text is the most open-ended provision, in the U. S. Constitution, of whose literal meaning there exist many understanding in its Chinese readers. As far as whether the unenumerated individual rights can be inferred from it is concerned, there exists an opposition between two groups of its American readers. One group holds a positive answer, while the other a negative one. This article justified the former on the basis of a research into the Chinese version of the Ninth Amendment and regard the Ninth Amendment as a "right(s) presumption clause". In the meantime, this article concludes that the Ninth Amendment should only be used as an indirect source of unenumerated rights by the courts lest the judicial discretion might be abused; that other provisions of the Constitution, the common law and state laws should be used as direct sources of unenumerated rights; that the Ninth Amendment provides lawful base for the judicial identification of unenumerated right(s) under these direct sources.Chapter 5 is a discussion about the Ninth Amendment’s judicial applicability and its scope of spatial validity taking Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) as an example. Griswold v. Connecticut(1965) was the first case for the Supreme Court to quote the Ninth Amendment identifying an unenumerated right, but the quotation raised two doubts:(1) Whether the review of constitutionality, performed by an non-democratically elected court against the law made by an democratically elected legislature, violates both the doctrine of democracy and the principle of rule of law? According to the exposition of the Framers such as Madison and Hamilton, the "Bill of Rights" should be applied by the least dangerous judicial branches in order to avoid the jeopardy of "majoritarian tyranny". From the viewpoint of the nature of judicial power, the judicial branch is fitter for institutional judgments than the legislative organization. It does fit the common law tradition for the judicial branch to interpret the constitution. From the viewpoint of practice, the pattern of constitutional evaluation through interpretation by judicial branch is better to maintain the constitutional stability than the pattern of constitutional evaluation through framing. Thus, it is appropriate and probably do not violate the doctrine of democracy and the principle of rule of law for the court to apply the Ninth Amendment and declare the law unconstitutional. (2) Whether the Ninth Amendment, which was originally intended to apply to the federal government, can be applied to the state governments? When the "Bill of Rights" was formulated, the state governments were regarded as the defenders of civil rights while the federal government’s management one kind of "foreign rule". In this sense, the viewpoint that the Ninth Amendment is applicable only to the federal government accords with the "Framer’s intention". The history shows that both the federal and state governments can do harm to civil rights, so the Ninth Amendment shall be interpreted under such circumstances that it is applicable to both the federal and state governments.Chapter 6 is an analysis of the Ninth Amendment’s right-presumption function in comparison with that of the "due process clause of law". In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the majority of the justices’ practice identifying unenumerated marital privacy mainly on the basis of the Ninth Amendment was criticized by the minority of justices and the scholars because of the suspicion about abused judicial discretion. In identifying other unenumerated rights, the justices of the Supreme Court turned their attentions to the "due process clause of law" instead of the Ninth Amendment, which is called by some scholars the revival of "substantive due process of law" doctrine. In fact, the new practice of the Supreme Court had resulted in sharper criticism than ever because:(1) There exist contradiction in the term "substantive due process" itself; (2) It violates the source-course relationship between the constitutional right and constitutional freedom to infer "right" from the concept "freedom" in the "due process clause of law"; (3) It is similarly suspicious of abused judicial discretion to identify unenumerated right on the basis of "due process clause of law". As a result, the recommendable answer is that the Ninth Amendment is a more suitable textual base for unenumerated right than the "due process clause of law".Chapter 7 is both an analysis of the Ninth Amendment rights’ scope and nature and a discussion about those rights’ identification methods and judging standards as well. The unenumerated rights to which the Ninth Amendment refers include those enumerated in the main body of the Constitution, the first 8 amendments of the "Bill of Rights" and the other 16 effective amendments, and those that can be inferred from the restrictive provisions of powers as well. From the viewpoint of their natures, the unenumerated rights include negative and positive rights; they are individual rights, not collective rights; they are fundamental rights, not non-fundamental rights. In identifying unenumerated rights, the court will be less suspicious of abusing judicial discretion if some methods, such as the original method, the textual method, the constructive method, the presumptive method and the synthetic method, etc., are applied. An unenumerated right should be considered being identified objectively by the court if it is accepted by the public or it is recorded in the international conventions on human rights.Chapter 8 is an evaluation of the Ninth Amendment’s future. The attitude of the Supreme Court is decisive toward the future of the Ninth Amendment. Although the Ninth Amendment had never been mentioned by the Supreme Court (or the justices) since Troxel v. Granville (2000), this does not mean that the starting 21st century may be an era that the Ninth Amendment be covered with dust. Viewed from the educational background, the professional experience and the judicial philosophy trends of the justices and the renaissance of textualism, some justices may cite the Ninth Amendment to identify and protect an unenumerated right once an unenumerated right requirement emerges and is ultimately sued before the Bench for protection.Chapter 9 is concerned about the inspiration from the Ninth Amendment to China. The protection of civil rights is the key to construct a harmonious society. That is to say that both the enumerated and the unenumerated rights ought to be protected. Since it is more complicated to protect the unenumerated rights than it is to protect the enumerated ones, the use of foreign experiences as a source of reference is a must. The validity mechanism of the Ninth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution shows that the feasible approaches to the implementation of our Human Right Clause may include the follows:the existence of the unenumerated right claims, the consummation of our current constitutional supervision system and the full play of its Human Right protection function as well as the reasonable interpretation of the Human Right Clause.更多还原