冯克利:传统与权利——《独立宣言》再解读

选择字号:   本文共阅读 2106 次 更新时间:2016-04-10 10:45:23

进入专题: 独立宣言    

冯克利 (进入专栏)  
no. 283 (1976), pp. 290—291, p. 297.

   [32] 1762年12月25日致John Page函,见Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 4. Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907, p. 3.

   [33] Imogene E. Brown, American Aristides: A Biography of George Wythe. East Brunswick, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1981, p. 77.

   [34] 见Charles F. Mullett, Fundamental Law and the American Revolution, 1760–1776

   [34] 见Charles F. Mullett, Fundamental Law and the American Revolution, 1760–1776 (1933. New York: Octagon Books, 1966. p. 39.

   [35] Christopher St. Germain, Doctor and Student. Loang Institute, 2006, pp. 5—6.

   [36] Thomas Jefferson: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 12. Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907, p. 4.

   [37] Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 16. Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907, p. 43.

   [38] Morton J. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1780—1860. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1977, p. 8.

   [39] 同上,p. 5.

   [40] 参见H. Trevor Colbourn, The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1965 , pp. 68-70, 94-95.

   [41] 参见Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, enlarged edition. Harvard University Press, 1992, p.30.

   [42] Georg Jelinek, The Declaration of the Rights of man and of Citizens: A Contribution to Modern Constitutional History. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1901, pp. 27—42.

   [43] Morton J. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1780—1860, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1977, pp. 4-9. 美国人对英国议会通过的一部分成文法的排斥,反映着他们日益否定议会主权的态度。当然,这也是他们后来决心独立的根本原因,税收本身的问题反而退居其次了。

   [44] Stephen Hopkins, “The Rights of the Colonies Examined” (1764), http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-rights-of-the-colonies-examined

   [45] Bailyn, Ideological origins, p. 77.

   [46] John C. H. Wu, “The Natural Law and Our Common Law,” Fordham Law Review, vol. 23 (1954), issue 1, p. 39.

   [47] Sir John Fortescue, In Praise of the Laws of England, in the author, On the Laws of and Governance of England, ed. by Shelley Lockwook. Cambridge University Press, 1997, chapters 15—16.

   [48] Fortescue, In Praise of the Laws of England, chapter 17.

   [49] Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power. Cleveland and New York: The World Publishing Company, 1955, pp. 106—107.

   [50] Charles. H. McIlwain, “The English Common Law, Barrier Against Absolutism,”, The American historical Review, vol. 49 (1943), no. 1, p. 28.

   [51] 参见William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England, in one volume. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1897, pp. 21—22.

   [52] Edward Coke, The Selected writings of Sir Edward Coke, vol. 2,. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2003, p. 701.

   [53] John Dickinson, An Address to the Committee of Correspondence of Barbados (1766), in Paul L. Ford, ed., The Writings of John Dickinson. Philadelphia: Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1895, p. 262.

   [54] John Adams, 转引自Edward S. Corwin, The Higher Law Background of American Constitutional Law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1955, p. 24.

   [55] Charles H. MacIlwain, Constitutionalism: Ancient and Modern. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2007, p. 16. 另参见同作者, The Growth of Political Thought in the West. From the Greeks to the End of the Middle Ages (1932). New York: Macmillan, 1953, p. 365.

   [56] 参见American Colonies Documents. Livonia, Mi., Lonang Institute, n.d.. 这份文献收录了1601—1701年北美殖民地最重要的十三份宪法性文件。

   [57] James McClelan, Liberty, Order, and Justice. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2000, p. 54.

   [58] 参见Morton J. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1780—1860. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1977, p. 4.

   [59] John C. H. Wu, “The Natural Law and Our Common Law,” Fordham Law Review, vol. 23 (1954), issue 1, p. 39.

   [60] Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, in Selected Works, 4 vol.. Indianapolis: Fund of Liberty, 1999, vol. 1, p. 237.

   [61] 这一原则同样来自库克在1628年著名的“博纳姆博士案”(Case of Dr. Bonham)中有关普通法高于议会法案的解释。见Edward Coke, The Selected Writings of Edward Coke, vol.1. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2003, pp. 264—283.

   [62] 参见A. P. d’Entrèves, Natural Law: An Introduction to Legal Philosophy. London: Hutchinson University Press, 1951, 1972, pp. 34—35.

   [63] Stephen Hopkins, “The Rights of the Colonies Examined” (1764), http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-rights-of-the-colonies-examined.

   [64] Mousourakis, Fundamentals of Roman Law, p. 125.

   [65] 参见A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. Indianapolis: Liberty Classic, 1985, pp. 115-116

   [66] Michael Zuckert, The Natural Rights Republic. South Bend, In.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1996, chapter 4.

  

进入 冯克利 的专栏     进入专题: 独立宣言    

本文责编:川先生
发信站:爱思想(http://www.aisixiang.com),栏目:天益学术 > 政治学 > 政治思想与思潮
本文链接:http://www.aisixiang.com/data/98598.html
文章来源:《学术月刊》2016年第2期

3 推荐

在方框中输入电子邮件地址,多个邮件之间用半角逗号(,)分隔。

爱思想(aisixiang.com)网站为公益纯学术网站,旨在推动学术繁荣、塑造社会精神。
凡本网首发及经作者授权但非首发的所有作品,版权归作者本人所有。网络转载请注明作者、出处并保持完整,纸媒转载请经本网或作者本人书面授权。
凡本网注明“来源:XXX(非爱思想网)”的作品,均转载自其它媒体,转载目的在于分享信息、助推思想传播,并不代表本网赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。若作者或版权人不愿被使用,请来函指出,本网即予改正。
Powered by aisixiang.com Copyright © 2020 by aisixiang.com All Rights Reserved 爱思想 京ICP备12007865号 京公网安备11010602120014号.
易康网