|
|
（中英）联邦大法官们，用司法权对抗行政权是这么玩的吗？
美国联邦上诉法院上周驳回了美国总统对中东七国旅行禁令被叫停的上诉请求，这是继联邦法官James Robart用司法权罕见叫停总统行政权以来，新科总统Trump遭到的第二次掣肘。三权鼎立之两权相斗，让闹哄哄的美国总统选举凸显出来的民主体制问题再一次曝光在吃瓜众人看热闹的眼中。
可是，司法权的两次出手并没有让民众对联邦法院那些律政精英的说辞买单，反而让总统的这一禁令更火爆，民调显示：总统禁令的受欢迎程度甚至已经超越了受抵制程度。
联邦法院反复强调的叫停原因是：从911事件至今，没有证据显示美国境内有恐怖袭击与这7个禁令国家有关，因此，这个总统令缺乏说服证据。对此， Trump总统方面只有一个辩词：出台这个禁令背后的原因属于常识（common sense）。然而在律政混混看来，这个禁令是有足够的法律/惯例依据的，而联邦法官James Robart以及上诉院法官都犯了一个法理逻辑错误：本案的不同常规（unconventional）之处是：这是前瞻性（PRE-action）案例，与常规的事后案例（POST-action）所预期的判决目的不同，因此，判据的衡量标准（burden of proof）也应该有所区别。
常规案例是控告在先（当然疑似犯案事实也在先），上庭的目的是求证控告与事实相符，依照民事/刑事案例的不同举证门槛（burden of proof）：民事（合理怀疑reasonabledoubt）低于刑事(确凿无疑beyond reasonable doubt)，判决是否支持原告。而本案是针对总统发布的行政令的合理性提出质疑、并进行司法干预的请求。总统令本事是前瞻性的，是针对时下的恐怖袭击威胁，出于保障国民安全、不惜一切代价出台的预防性指令，其操作模式当然是把国家安全置于一切其他利益之上。这样的行政管理模式是否有违美国法律？是否有先例？请看San Bernardino恐怖袭击案：据报道，凶手的邻居其实早已察觉异常，但碍于“政治正确”（political correctness）以及担心被安上种族歧视罪名而没有报警。FBI事后专门发布了异常活动举报热线，鼓励民众举报任何可疑人物事件，而不必担心后果。这样降低举报门槛的原因是什么？没有一个国家政府敢拿老百姓的安危开玩笑，或者说没有哪一个政府敢说自己对于恐袭事件有可以接受的误差容忍区间。再有，911事件以后有了一个政治新名词，叫“布什主义” （Bush Doctrine），它影响了美国的很多司法案例，其主要宗旨就是：美国有权为保卫自己而对抗那些向恐怖主义提供庇护或援助的国家。在具体操作上，一旦事关美国国家安全，任何司法禁区几乎都可以被打破，“国家安全”尚方宝剑祭出，各路关卡一律放行。
当且仅当饱受争议的Trump当选后，对于他的这样一个以最高国家安全为诉求的前瞻性总统令，美国联邦法院居然政治小脑挂帅，用“事后案例”的证据标准严苛，说什么没有一起美国恐袭案与这7国有直接联系，难不成这些律政精英处心积虑要的就是一个以民众伤亡为代价、来自于禁令7国的恐袭案件，才能让总统的保护国家安全禁令得以实施？！
至于此案中一些法官纠结的“美国宪法权益的平等适用”问题，律政混混觉得很可笑的一点就是：从来没有到过美国领土的人为什么要享有美国宪法的权利保护？对此，我很敬重的Mr. Trey Gowdy说：以移民/难民身份到美国，是一种特惠授予（privilege），而并非法定权利(legal right)。
美国联邦法院这些法官暗自盘算的里程碑效果肯定是达到了，究竟是英名还是臭名，且行且看，但最好不要以老百姓的性命为代价，否则就不是里程碑效应，而是耻辱柱恶果！
The Federal AppealsCourt judgment is a very impressive and laughable one for lack of legal senseon the difference between PRE-action vs POST-action.
Not surprised, the American federal appeal court ruledunanimously against Trump on his executive order: travel ban which is in factfor the sole purpose of better national security which is in every American’sbest interests. Trump is arguing that it is a common sense, but even if in thelegal respect, there is something deeply wrong with the federal appeals panel.
The case is unconventional which means the federal courtjudges do not have many experiences on such kind of issue. The key differencebetween this President-Order-Reviewing case and those conventional cases isPRE-action case vs POST-action case. The present case requires keen judgment onPRE-actions for the national security sake. As for the so-called “lack ofevidence” on terrorist attacks related to the 7 countries, without questioningthe panel’s memory on San Bernardino shooting, what kind of bloody evidence theFederal Appeals Court judges are looking for? Do they have any idea that thecase is unconventional in terms of PRE-action, not POST-action? In thosePOST-action cases, we do need enough evidence for criminal conviction, but thisis a national security order reviewing case where the government has to do itsbest to prevent people from any possible danger! The burden proof of this caseshould have been lower than those in POST-action cases!
None of the federal appeal judges recalled the fact that“Neighbor to family of San Bernardino terrorist couple purportedly saw butdidn’t report ‘suspicious activity’” and the FBI then published an AnonymousCrime Reporting Hotline to encourage people to report any suspicious activityregardless the “political correctness” concern, not to mention a series oflegislations following the Bush Doctrine which by definition given by Wikipediameans that “the United States has the right to secure itself against countriesthat harbor or give aid to terrorist groups”.
I agree with Mr. Trump that the country has “ a situationwhere the security of our country is at stake, and it’s a very, very serioussituation” .
Those judges just proved their poor judgement like Hillaryand that they are not capable to handle a single unconventional case!Congratulation to the federal court judges, they may be remembered for a notgood reason, hopefully, not with civilians’ bloody costs.
-justiceQC/律政混混， IForYou, Tumblr blogger (English/Chinese), 《魁北克新公司法》中法英三语对照及麻辣诠释第一人！吾心自有光明月，千古团圆水无缺！A voice for little people, ordinary people and minoritypeople in Quebec, Canada!
http://yes-justice-seeking.tumblr.com/ |
|
楼主: 从来没有救世主
狗仔卡
发表于 2017-2-13 00:29:23
显身卡