很多人一直搞不懂，外交是行政特權，總統經民眾選舉，本身即代表民意，如非宣戰或條約簽訂，就不需要國會同意。這是我國憲法的精神，也是世界各國憲法理論的基礎。
Pei-Shi Lin
在美國，外交是總統的行政特權。雖然這不是憲法明確給予總統的權力，但漢彌爾頓等聯邦黨人很早就這樣主張了，而其實反聯邦派對此也沒有甚麼有力的反駁，所以這種見解就被美國憲政學者默認為事實而延續至今。
漢彌爾頓是這樣說的（Pacificus # 1）：
----quote----
A correct and well informed mind will discern at once that it can belong neither to the Legislative nor Judicial Department and of course must belong to the Executive.
A correct and well informed mind will discern at once that it can belong neither to the Legislative nor Judicial Department and of course must belong to the Executive.
知識充足且思慮清晰的人，必然會認清：外交權限既不屬於立法部門，也不屬於司法部門，而只可能屬於行政部門。
The Legislative Department is not the organ of intercourse between the U States and foreign Nations. It is charged neither with making nor interpreting Treaties. It is therefore not naturally that Organ of the Government which is to pronounce the existing condition of the Nation ...
立法部門不是美國與外國彼此交往的對口機關；何以故？因為立法部門並非在國際場合中代表國家現狀發聲的互動機關。
----endquote----
----endquote----
漢彌爾頓更強調：美國憲法對於立法機關的外交業務，有很明確的界定範圍，但憲法對於行政機關的外交業務卻幾乎完全沒有設限；因此立法機關若想動輒干預外交事務，這就是侵害了行政權，就是破壞三權分立制衡的憲政原則。
這種給予行政機關自由裁量特權的構想，其實早在洛克那邊就已經存在。是的，就是那個主張「如果君主不能保障人民的自由與天賦權利，則人民就有義務發動革命將之推翻」的洛克。
洛克是這樣說的（Two Treatises of Government, 2-14-159）：
----quote----
Where the legislative and executive power are in distinct hands, (as they are in all moderated monarchies, and well-framed governments) there the good of the society requires, that several things should be left to the discretion of him that has the executive power: for the legislators not being able to foresee, and provide by laws, for all that may be useful to the community, the executor of the laws having the power in his hands, has by the common law of nature a right to make use of it for the good of the society ...
Where the legislative and executive power are in distinct hands, (as they are in all moderated monarchies, and well-framed governments) there the good of the society requires, that several things should be left to the discretion of him that has the executive power: for the legislators not being able to foresee, and provide by laws, for all that may be useful to the community, the executor of the laws having the power in his hands, has by the common law of nature a right to make use of it for the good of the society ...
在一個良好的社會中，行政與立法權應該分屬不同部門，但有些業務應該保留給行政機關自由裁量。何以故？因為立法機關不可能預見所有國際局勢的走向與戰略與外交利益業務的需要，也不可能針對所有的外交業務而提前立法。為了整個國家的利益著想，行政機關應該依法取得主管這類業務的自由裁量權限。憑藉著自然法與理性，行政機關有權運用這類權限去為國家整體謀福利。
in many cases, where the municipal law has given no direction, till the legislative can conveniently be assembled to provide for it.
Many things there are, which the law can by no means provide for; and those must necessarily be left to the discretion of him that has the executive power in his hands, to be ordered by him as the public good and advantage shall require:
Many things there are, which the law can by no means provide for; and those must necessarily be left to the discretion of him that has the executive power in his hands, to be ordered by him as the public good and advantage shall require:
而就實務經驗而言，其實在大多數情形下，其實很多立法機關的法規都制定得毫無章法與邏輯，而只是完全順從立法者的順手方便甚至奇思怪想而為。既然立法機關常常只是幫倒忙，則給予行政機關某些自由裁量的特權以謀求公共福祉就是必要的。
nay, it is fit that the laws themselves should in some cases give way to the executive power, or rather to this fundamental law of nature and government, viz. That as much as may be, all the members of the society are to be preserved:
當然，這並不是說法律一定都要為行政機關讓路；國法仍然是必須要順從根本的自然法則，並用以保障全體人民。
for since many accidents may happen, wherein a strict and rigid observation of the laws may do harm; (as not to pull down an innocent man's house to stop the fire, when the next to it is burning) and a man may come sometimes within the reach of the law, which makes no distinction of persons, by an action that may deserve reward and pardon;
但當災難或緊急狀態發生時，墨守法律規定有時反而只會造成更大的傷害（比方說，眼見著有人的房子就要被燒著了，但卻拘泥於私有財產權的規定而不敢闖入屋內搶救屋主及其家人）。立法者有時候在立法時並沒有考慮到真實世界中的各種差異與需要。
'tis fit the ruler should have a power, in many cases, to mitigate the severity of the law, and pardon some offenders: for the end of government being the preservation of all, as much as may be, even the guilty are to be spared, where it can prove no prejudice to the innocent.
為了處理這類狀況，在許多情形下賦予行政機關自由裁量的權限是必要的──只要這種行政特權的行使確實是為了達成政府存在的目的、且為了保障人民全體或為了國家社會謀福祉。它可以緩和法律的嚴苛，也可以寬恕某些情有可原或在公道上確實無辜的犯法行為。
----endquote----
----endquote----
所以，任何宣稱自己很懂自由主義憲政理論、但卻覺得馬英九在出訪前必須先得到國會同意的人，真的都只可能是假貨。向她們邀稿或雇用她們教學的單位，最好檢查一下這些人的文憑是不是假造的或有沒有像小保芳一樣被撤銷了。
另外，有些人以為：馬英九現在都快下台了，而且馬英九與國民黨的民意支持度那麼低，所以沒有資格代表人民去搞外交。
會說這種話的人，我相信政治學與民主理論一定也學得不怎麼樣。
所謂看守內閣或跛鴨（lame-duck），指的都是繼任的行政首長已經經由民主程序決定了、但尚未正式上任；所以為了尊重新的行政首長，那些尚未正式下台的首長不宜作太多的政治決策。
這邊的重點在於「選舉結果已經出爐」。
好，我知道很多人都以為蔡英文根本是躺著選。但選舉既然還沒舉行、結果更是還沒出爐，則我們就是不能說馬英九現在只能當看守內閣或只能扮演跛鴨。
不然，假設在選舉前大陸對我們發動軍事攻擊了，誰來當最高統帥指揮軍隊？如果有一個即將被派赴前線的覺醒小兵主張「馬英九你已經是跛鴨了，所以無權命令我們去戰場上送死」，難道在解放軍大軍即將登陸的前夕、我們仍然會覺得這種說詞可以接受嗎？
又或者說，假設偏偏就在選舉前一天，外星人大舉入侵，或是史上最大地震連三發襲台，難道我們可以說「馬英九你已經是跛鴨了，所以無權發布緊急命令以救災或強制遷村」嗎？
正常有理性腦袋的人，以及那些腦袋裝大便但碰巧活在蔡英文當總統時代的人，我相信都會認可憲政上就是給予行政機關這種權限。
最重要的是：所謂看守內閣或跛鴨云云，那都只是慣例與禮貌而已。
1801年確立美國最高法院違憲審查權的Marbury v. Madison案，追根究柢，當初就是因為即將卸任的美國亞當斯利用國會優勢任命了大批新的聯邦法院法官、檢察總長與國務卿、但卻把一部分簽了名的任命狀留在辦公桌上尚未正式發出才形成爭議的。
所以，真正的憲政主義，從來都必須建立在「社會上存在一群真心熱愛憲政且學養兼修的紳士（在此不涉及性別）」的基礎之上。
像那種念了一輩子憲法，但到了顏色不對的時刻就開始踐踏自己專業的人，其存在不僅對於憲政沒有幫助，還只會摧毀任何真正意義上之憲政的實踐可能性。
沒有留言:
張貼留言