下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
美国宪法规划了法律的整体框架，是法律的灵魂。美国宪法的核心内容是对立法、司法、行政三权分立、相互制衡的制度设计。
一、司法权（judicial power）
美国政府是一个权力有限的政府，只有经过宪法授权的行为才是合法行为。同时，宪法也在第3条中设定了联邦法院体系和联邦法院所管辖案件的范围。
联邦法院有两种：一种称作“第3条法院”（Article III Courts），也就是国会根据联邦宪法第3条第一款的规定设立的法院；一种叫做“第1条法院”（Article I Courts），也就是国会为了行使方方面面的立法权而设立的法院，这类法院不但有司法功能，有时候也具有行政功能。
联邦最高法院的管辖权，可以分为初审管辖权（original jurisdiction）和上诉管辖权（appellate jurisdiction）。初审管辖包括涉及大使、其他驻外高级外交使节与领事的案件，以及美国政府是一方当事人的案件。对于涉及宪法、国会制定的法律的案件，涉及国际条约的案件，除了国会规定的例外情况，最高法院都有管辖权。
二、立法权（legislative power）
美国宪法以列举的方式授予了国会特定的权力，这些权力规定在第1条第8款，同时也通过“必要且适宜”条款（Necessary and Proper Clause）间接授予了国会辅助性的权力。所谓必要且适宜的权力，就是为确保联邦政府任一分支机构权力的实施，国会有权制定所必须且适宜的法律。
宪法所列举的联邦国会的权力包括税收权、财政开支权、商务管理权、宣战权、调查权、财产处分权、破产规范权、邮政权与公民身份相关的权力、海事海商权（admiralty power）、货币制造与度量衡确定权、专利/著作权等。
三、对个人权利的保护与对政府行为或私人行为的限制
美国宪法的前10项修订条款，又称作权利法案，既是对个人权利的保护，又是对联邦政府权力的限制。
对私人行为的限制，主要体现在宪法的商务条款和外州公民权利条款，主要内容是联邦最高法院允许国会通过相关规定限制个人对他人的权利。
剥夺公民权法案（bills of attainder）是被宪法所禁止的。根据宪法第5条和第14条修正案，具有溯及力的立法和其他政府行为，可能会违背宪法的正当程序（due process）条款。条款规定，不经正当法律程序，政府不得剥夺个人的生命、财产和自由，强调程序的公正，至少要使当事人有机会向一个公正、中立的裁判者表达异议。
宪法的正当程序条款和平等保护条款的目的是保障法律的公平；实质性正当程序（substantive due process）是为了保证法律合理且不随意；平等保护条款则确保情况相似的个人受到相似对待。
法院审查有关法律是否违反上述条款时采取了一定的审查标准（standard of review），标准有三：严格审查标准（strict scrutiny）、中度审查标准（intermediate scrutiny）和最低审查标准（minimal scrutiny）。
平等保护条款对象限于各州行为，但是联邦政府明显不合理的歧视显然也是违反平等保护条款的。但是，如果立法行为或者政府行为仅仅具有歧视效果，并不足以启动严格审查或者中度审查程序。
四、基本权利
公民的基本权利包括隐私权、选举权、迁徙权等等。
公民的隐私权多种多样，包括婚姻、堕胎、生子等，都属于基本权利，对于影响这些基本权利的法律规定，要按照严格标准予以审查，只有在为保护极其重要的权益所必须时，这些法律才会得到支持。
年龄在18岁以上的美国公民都有选举权，包括全国性的和州内的选举。选举权也属于基本权利，通过严格审查后才能对这些权利予以限制。
迁徙权分为州际迁徙权和国际迁徙权。州际迁徙是基本权利，如果某个州要求达到一定居住年限的话，这一要求就必须通过严格审查标准才有效。至于国际迁徙，迄今联邦最高法院尚未将其宣布为基本权利，但是从正当程序规则中我们似乎可以推知，联邦政府不得随意干涉个人的国际间迁徙权。
Marbury principle:Under Marbury v. Madison ,it is the Supreme Court,not Congress,which has the authority and duty to declare a congressional statute unconstitutional if the Court thinks it violates the Constitution.
Congress has the general power to decide what types of cases the Supreme Court may hear,so long as it doesn't expand the Supreme Court's jurisdiction beyond the federaljudicial power.
Congress also may decide what lower federal courts there should be,and what cases they may hear. Again,the outer bound ofthis power is that Congress can't allow the federal courts to hear a case that is not within the federaljudicial power.
The federaljudiciary may decide“cases”or“controversies”that fall within the federaljudicial power.
The federal government is a government of limited powers,which means that for federal action to be legitimate,it must be authorized. The Constitution is the instrument that authorizes the federal government to act. Thus,whenever a question involves action by an entity of the federal government,the action will be valid only if it is authorized by the Constitution. The Constitution authorizes a federal court system in ArticleⅢ,which provides that federal courts shall have Judicial Power over all“cases and controversies”:
（1）Arising under the Constitution,laws,or treaties of the United States；
（2）Of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction；
（3）In which the United States is a party；
（4）Between two or more states；
（5）Between a state and citizens of another state；
（6）Between citizens of different states；
（7）Between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states；and
（8）Between a state or citizens thereof and foreign states,citizens,or subject.
Only the action ofArticleⅢcourts are the subject of our outline,but you should know that there are two types of federal courts.
Article III courts are those established by Congress pursuant to the provisions of ArticleⅢ,Section 1. Although Congress has
plenary power
to delineate thejurisdictional limits,both original and appellate,of these courts,it is bound by the standards ofjudicial power set forth in Article III as to subject matter,parties,and the requirement of“case or controversy. ”Thus,Congress cannot require these courts to
render
advisory opinions or perform administrative or non‐judicial functions.
Congress has created certain others,however,by way of implementing its various legislative powers；e. g. United States Tax Court,courts of the District of Columbia. Judges of such ArticleⅠcourts do not have life tenure or protection from salary decrease as do ArticleⅢcourt judges. ArticleⅠcourts are sometimes vested with administrative as well as judicial functions,and the congressional power to create such“hybrid”courts has been sustained by the Supreme Court.
Under Article III,Section 2,the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction“in all cases affecting ambassadors,other public ministers and consuls,and those in which a state shall be a party. ”This provision is self‐executing:Congress may neither restrict nor enlarge the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction,but Congress may give
concurrent jurisdiction
to lower federal courts and has done so regarding all cases except those between states.
Article III,Section 2 further provides that“in all other cases before mentioned[i. e. ,arising under the Constitution,Act of Congress,or treaty],the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction,both as to Law and Fact,with such Exceptions,and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. ”
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the“case and controversy”requirement in ArticleⅢbars rendition of“advisory”opinion. Thus,federal courts will not render decisions in moot cases,collusive suits,or cases involving challenges to governmental legislation or policy whose enforcement is neither actual threatened.
A plaintiff generally is not entitled to review of a state law before it is enforced（i. e. ,may not obtain a
declaratory judgmen
t
）. Thus,a federal court will not hear a case unless the plaintiff has been harmed or there is an immediate threat of harm.
A federal court will not hear a case that has become moot；a real,live controversy must exist at all stages of review,not merely when the complaint is filed.
A plaintiff will be able to show a sufficient
stake
in the controversy only if he can show an injury in fact—caused by the government—that will be remedied by a decision in his favor（i. e. ,causation and redressability）.
（1）Injury
To be standing,a person must be able to assert that she is injured by a government action or that the government has made a clear threat to cause injury to her if she fails to comply with a government law,regulation,or order. Some specific injury must be alleged,and it must be more than the merely theoretical injury that all persons suffer by seeing their government engage in unconstitutional actions.
（2）Causation
There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—i. e. ,the injury must be traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant and not be attributable to some independent third party not before the court.
（3）Redressability
In determining whether a litigant has a sufficient injury to establish standings,courts ask whether a ruling favorable to the litigant would eliminate the harm to him. If a court order declaring a government action to be illegal or unconstitutional（and ending that government action）would not eliminate the harm to the litigant,then that individual does not have the types of specific injury that would grant him standing to challenge the government action.
The Supreme Court will hear a case from a state court only ifthe state court judgment turned on federal grounds. The Court will refuse jurisdiction if it finds adequate and independent nonfederal grounds to support the state decision.
（1）“Adequate”
The nonfederal grounds must be“adequate”in that they are fully dispositive of the case,so that even if the federal grounds are wrongly decided,it would not affect the outcome of the case.
（2）“Independent”
The nonfederal grounds must be“independent”:If the state court's interpretation of its state provision was based on federal case law interpreting an identical federal provision,the state law grounds for the decision are not independent.
（1）Unsettled State Law
When a federal constitutional claim is premised on an unsettled question of state law,the federal court should stay its hand（“abstain”temporarily）,so as to give state courts a chance to settle the underlying state law question and thus potentially avoid the needless resolution of a federal constitutional issue.
（2）Pending State Proceedings
Generally,federal courts will not enjoin pending state criminal proceedings.
The Eleventh Amendment is a jurisdictional bar that modifies the judicial power by prohibiting a federal court from hearing a private party's or foreign government's claims against a state government.
（1）What Is Barred?
The Eleventh Amendment's jurisdictional bar extends to the following:
a. Actions against state governments for damages；
b. Actions against state governments for injunctive or declaratory relief where the state is named as a party；
c. Actions against state government officers where the effect of the suit will be that retroactive damages will be paid from the state treasury or where the action is the functional equivalent of a quiet title action that would divest the state of owner ship of land；and
d. Actions against state government officers for violating state law.
（2）What Is Not Barred?
a. Actions Against Local Governments
The Eleventh Amendment protects only state governments. Local government（e. g. ,cities or counties）is not protected.
b. Actions by the United States Government or Other State Governments
Actions by the United States Government to other state governments are not barred.
Note:Native American tribes are treated as other private parties,and so they are barred from bringing an action against a state government in federal court.
（3）Exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment
a. Certain Actions Against State Officers
The Supreme Court allows the following actions to be brought against state officials despite the Eleventh Amendment:
（a）Actions against state officers for injunctions
（b）Actions against state officers for monetary damages from officer
（c）Actions against state officers for prospective payment from state
b. State Consents
A state may consent to suit in federal court. However,no consent will be found unless the state clearly waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity.
c. Congressional Removal of Immunity Under the Fourteenth Amendment
Congress can remove the states'Eleventh Amendment immunity under its power to prevent discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment.