热度 7|||
民主是好事。毛泽东提出的人民民主专政(People's Democratic Dictatorship)可以说是对民主理论的一个发展。我对美国的民主制度也是高度评价的,美国这个系统非常稳定,特别是它司法审查制度,把法院的权威提了上来。美国政治下,管钱的、拿枪的、讲理的三个分支相对独立,三足鼎立。当然了,枪杆子里面出政权的原理在美国仍然存在。林肯就是用枪杆子的典型例子。内战期间,美联邦军队对司法、立法都具有控制力。要真正理解美国民主,需要若干方面的知识,包括美国历史,特别是美国内战史,以及美国的法律及法律传统。
先写这么多,再根据情况补充。
补充图片:下图是法院裁决房主必须撤出住宅后的镜头(2008获奖照片)
下图:美国的强制拆迁(Chavez):照片充分体现了的美国法治与言论自由
(警察强制拉走女住户、媒体现场报道)
Kelo 判决书: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZO.html
建议先读读,学学美国民主法治再发言。下面是美国最高法院精神:
Petitioners contend that using eminent domain for economic development impermissibly blurs the boundary between public and private takings. Again, our cases foreclose this objection. Quite simply, the government’s pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties. For example, in Midkiff, the forced transfer of property conferred a direct and significant benefit on those lessees who were previously unable to purchase their homes. In Monsanto, we recognized that the “most direct beneficiaries” of the data-sharing provisions were the subsequent pesticide applicants, but benefiting them in this way was necessary to promoting competition in the pesticide market. 467 U.S., at 1014. The owner of the department store in Berman objected to “taking from one businessman for the benefit of another businessman,” 348 U.S., at 33, referring to the fact that under the redevelopment plan land would be leased or sold to private developers for redevelopment. Our rejection of that contention has particular relevance to the instant case: “The public end may be as well or better served through an agency of private enterprise than through a department of government–or so the Congress might conclude. We cannot say that public ownership is the sole method of promoting the public purposes of community redevelopment projects.” Id.
对比中国 (看看美国人民在这个问题上是多么羡慕中国人民)
(下面两张图是从美国人羡慕贴中摘取,该贴中有美国人贴的美国强拆照)
Powered by Discuz! X2.5