海阔天空 | 手机版

2024-07-01华盛顿 --今天最高法院的六个保守派裁决：在我国权力分立的宪法结构下，总统权力的性质要求前总统在其任职期间享有一定程度的官方行为免受刑事起诉的豁免权。至少就总统行使核心宪法权力而言，这种豁免权必须是绝对的。至于他剩余的公务行为，他也享有豁免权。然而，在本案的现阶段，我们不需要也不会决定这种豁免是否必须是绝对的，或者推定豁免是否足够。简而言之，就是赋予总统职位的官方行为享有 "绝对豁免权"，不受刑事犯罪起诉。而且其他行为，即使是那些处于总统公务外围的行为，也享有 "推定豁免权"，使其更难受到起诉。

这些保守派一向标榜自己是“原文主义者”（originalism and textualism）。首先，宪法原文里完全没有赋予总统任何豁免权的段落文字，无论是绝对豁免还是推定豁免，无论是公务行为还是私人行为。现在无中生有，完全是虚伪的党派行为。

其次，在1974年美国诉尼克松一案中，最高法院就一致裁决总统没有特权，必须服从法律的正当程序和公正的刑事判决。

第三，尼克松被迫辞职之后，继任的福特总统在给尼克松的赦免书中就说明赦免尼克松是为了使得尼克松避免被刑事起诉所导致的犯罪判决。

第四，川普因为在2021年1月6日煽动其支持者暴力攻击企图推翻2020大选结果而面临第二次被弹劾，川普的辩护律师和共和党参议院领袖麦克内尔在参议院辩论时候就明确指出，川普不应该被弹劾的理由是川普已经卸任了，国会弹劾程序不适用了，但是没有任何豁免权，川普依然完全受制于刑事指控和民事起诉。但是，等到被大陪审团起诉了，川普的律师团队又180度大反转向最高法院提出总统又绝对豁免权，因为他们知道最高法院有六个保守派。

果然，最高法院的六个保守派（其中三个由川普任命，但是都没有自我回避）先是极限拖延了六个月，然后无中生有地编造出一个新的总统享有绝对豁免权的法理。根据如此荒谬的法理，总统可以随时命令军事戒严，命令军队向和平示威者们开枪射杀，命令司法部对其政治对手做出莫须有的刑事指控，甚至可以命令特种部队暗杀其政治对手，可以接受贿赂，出售官位和赦免书，等等，所有这些违法犯罪都是将不受法律制裁。

还值得注意的是，世界上其它发达民主国家都没有如此荒谬的总统绝对豁免权，也没有总统在任期内不受刑事犯罪检控的特权。

这是最高法院在总统权力和宪政问题上做出的最具影响力的判决之一。该判决的直接效果是无限期推迟了对川普试图推翻 2020 年大选的起诉，这意味着今年大选之前，选民们就无法知道川普在2020大选之后的所作所为，就无法对川普在暴力攻击国会企图颠覆大选的违法行为予以追究任何法律责任。

但是，今天这六个保守派的裁决对宪法和美国政府造成的长期威胁更为严重，尤其是考虑到川普在短短几个月内就有可能重新上台的实际可能性，他最近在纽约被判定犯有刑事罪，这只是他蔑视法律界限的最新表现。

一些人问，杜鲁门下令投放两个原子弹，尼克松下令对越南地毯式轰炸，造成无辜平民老妇幼死亡，是否应该被刑事起诉。许多人在这里混淆了问题。法律界限始终是一项行动是否违反宪法和现行法律、法规和规章。例如美国《宪法》（第 I 条第 9 款第 8 段）禁止联邦官员接受外国或其统治者、官员或代表的任何馈赠、付款或其他有价物品。川普在白宫对面公然开了川普酒店，就是属于违反宪法的行为。收受贿赂，贪赃枉法，将国家机密泄露给国外势力，命令特种部队暗杀政治对手，煽动暴徒攻击国会，干扰妨碍国会执行宪法规定的程序。。。等等这些都是刑事犯罪，无论是谁，都必须受到法律程序的制裁。

美国在1776宣布独立的建国理念包括，"任何人都不能凌驾于法律之上 "。从今天开始，这一基本原则已被搁置一旁。就在美国庆祝建国的这一周，六个保守派践踏破坏了美国独立革命的初衷，给将来的总统们提供了一个 可以肆意妄为的"无法空间“，朝着恢复《独立宣言》所反对的君主制迈出了一步。

因为这个可耻的裁决，这六个保守派颠覆了美国的建国理念和宪法原则，美国的民主共和宪政，再一次被践踏和破坏。

美国最高法院历史上曾经做出过不少及其恶劣可耻的裁决，今天这个裁决无疑将加入这个可耻名单。

1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): Oh, the dreaded Dred. The oldest case on our list is also coincidentally the worst. There may be disagreement about the other worst-ever SCOTUS, but nobody disagrees that this one is hands-down the worst Supreme Court decision ever. Dred Scott held that African Americans, whether free men or slaves, could not be considered American citizens. The ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, barred laws that would free slaves, and all but guaranteed that there would be no political solution to slavery. The opinion even included a ridiculous "parade of horribles" that would appear if Scott were recognized as a citizen, unspeakable scenarios like African Americans being able to vacation, hold public meetings, and exercise their free speech rights.

The 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution overturned the 1857 Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery, and the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to all people born in the United States.

2. The Civil Rights Cases of 1883

These were five consolidated cases challenging the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations like hotels, restaurants, and transportation. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment so narrowly that it struck down the Act, arguing that it could not regulate private businesses. This decision effectively ushered in the Jim Crow era of legalized racial segregation.

It would take over 80 years for the Court to switch course, allowing for the government protection of civil rights in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. — this time under the Commerce Clause.

3. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): You've probably heard of the infamous concept of “separate but equal." This decision upheld racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine. This flawed logic, despite supposedly guaranteeing equal facilities for both races, inherently implied Black inferiority and violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Plessy's legacy is one of perpetuating Jim Crow laws, psychological harm to Black Americans, and impeding racial progress for decades.

Only in 1954 did Brown v. Board of Education finally overturn Plessy and dismantle its segregationist legacy, a stark reminder of the dangers of legalized discrimination and the ongoing fight for a truly just and equitable society.

4. Lochner v. New York (1905): This case ignited a fiery debate for protecting employer interests over worker welfare, expanding judicial power through "substantive due process," and paving the way for the "Lochner era" of striking down progressive laws. Here, SCOTUS struck down a New York law limiting bakery work hours to 10 hours a day, finding an implicit "liberty of contract" in the Due Process Clause.

Though overruled, its legacy sparks ongoing discussions about balancing economic liberty with worker protection, interpreting fundamental rights, and the Court's cautious power to influence public policy in a changing society.

5. Buck v. Bell (1927): "Eugenics? Yes, please!" the Court declared in this terrible decision. In an 8-1 decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court upheld the forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities "for the protection and health of the state." Justice Holmes ruled that "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind" and ended the opinion by declaring that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."

6. Korematsu v. United States (1944): Here, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, finding that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of American citizens. In a cruel and ironic twist, this was also the first time the Court applied what is called “strict scrutiny" to racial discrimination by the U.S. government, belying the idea that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact."

Technically, Korematsu was never overturned by SCOTUS. However, its legitimacy has been severely undermined and it is no longer considered good law for several reasons. In 1983, a federal court judge overturned Korematsu's original conviction, acknowledging government suppression of evidence and racial prejudice in the decision. In 2018, Chief Justice Roberts strongly rebuked the Korematsu decision in the Trump v. Hawaii case, calling it "gravely wrong" and stating it has "no place in law under the Constitution." Thus, thankfully, Korematsu has lost its practical authority and is highly unlikely to be used as precedent in future cases due to its discredited foundation and inconsistent history.

7. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): This decision upheld a discriminatory Georgia sodomy statute that criminalized sexually active gay and lesbian relationships. As Justice Harry Blackmun noted in his dissent, the majority opinion displayed "an almost obsessive focus on homosexual activity." The decision was inconsistent with precedent because it denied a fundamental right to privacy for consenting adults engaging in private sexual conduct, even though the Court had previously recognized privacy rights in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception) and Roe v. Wade (abortion). Fortunately, Bowers was overruled in 2003 by Lawrence v. Texas, which recognized a fundamental right to privacy for all consenting adults engaging in private sexual conduct, regardless of their sexual orientation. This was a major victory for LGBTQ+ rights and helped pave the way for future advancements, including marriage equality.

8. Bush v. Gore (2000): Shaping the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, this remains one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in American history for several reasons. The Republican majority stopped the recount, raising potential violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and arguing that different standards for counting votes across counties could unfairly disenfranchise voters. However, critics argued that stopping the recounts altogether disproportionately affected Gore's supporters in those counties. Furthermore, the majority opinion specifically warned in the decision that “[o]ur consideration is limited to the present circumstances," discouraging future courts from relying on any legal holding in the decision, which further evidenced this decision was purely a political power grab for partisan interest.

9. Citizens United v. FEC (2010): Another, more recent case about presidential elections, Citizens United is a household name to this day due to ongoing controversy. It held that political donations are speech protected by the First Amendment, opening the floodgates to unlimited personal and corporate donations to "super PACs." Critics argue this grants enormous influence to wealthy special interests and corporations, effectively drowning out the voices of everyday citizens and giving undue power to a select few.

海阔天空

2024年7月1日

作者的相关文章：

1. 美国政治制度系列之一–输者当选的五次总统大选

2. 美国政治制度系列之二–选举人团的历史背景和根本错误

3. 美国政治制度系列之三–选举人团的辩伪

4. 美国政治制度系列之四–选举人团制度的弊端和改革

5. 美国政治制度系列之五–美国众议院席位的不平等分配

6. 美国政治制度系列之六–众议院席位的党派蝾螈划区

7. 美国政治制度系列之七–美国参议院制度的弊端及其危害

8. 美国政治制度系列之八–美国最高法院的弊端及其危害

9. 美国政治制度系列之九–美国民主宪政的危机与改革方案

10. 美国总统日 - 最新总统排名

11. 中华民国2024大选结果看民主选举制度

12. 暴力攻击国会1-6事件三年之后的历史回顾

13. 美国的民主指数持续下降沦为有缺陷的民主国家

14. 美国50个州，谁是贡献州或是吃福利州？

15. 民主宪政需要捍卫，否则魏玛重演

16. 2020大选到底有没有大规模选票舞弊