全球教席“云课堂”—— William M. Treanor：司法审查和文本主义的原初理解
时间：2021-12-07 来源：对外事务办公室作者：
全球教席“云课堂”45讲
详细信息：
题目：司法审查和文本主义的原初理解
The Original Understand of Judicial Review and Textualism
时间：2021年12月16日（周四）14:30 - 16:30
腾讯会议ID：402 427 675
开讲学者：
William M. Treanor（美国乔治城大学法学院院长、Paul Regis Dean Leadership讲席教授、法学教授）
主持人：
左亦鲁（4494.c威尼斯助理教授）
评议人：
戴昕（4494.c威尼斯长聘副教授）
阎天（4494.c威尼斯助理教授）
沈伟伟（中国政法大学法学院副教授）
开讲学者简介：
William M. Treanor 教授曾四次被美国《国家法学家杂志》评为法学教育最具影响力人物之一。他还曾被美国芝加哥大学法学院的 Brian Leiter 列为美国引证率最高的十大法律史学者之一。他的研究领域包括宪法学、财产法、刑法、知识产权和法律史。他在乔治城大学法学院开设一年级司法正义研讨课和关于美国宪法起草和批准的高阶课程。在乔治城大学法学院任教之前，他曾任福特汉姆大学法学院院长、Paul Fuller 讲席法学教授，也曾供职于多个政府部门。他曾任美国第二巡回上诉法院 James L. Oakes 法官的法官助理。他拥有耶鲁大学学士学位（以最优等成绩毕业）、耶鲁大学法律博士学位及哈佛大学历史学博士学位。
William M. Treanor is the Dean and Executive Vice President of Georgetown University Law Center, and he holds the Law Center’s Paul Regis Dean Leadership Professorship. National Jurist Magazine has named him one of the most influential people in legal education four times. He has also been recognized as one of the 10 most-cited legal history scholars in the United States by the University of Chicago Law School’s Brian Leiter. Treanor’s areas of expertise include constitutional law, property law, criminal law, intellectual property, and legal history. At Georgetown Law, he has taught a first-year legal justice seminar and an upper-level course on the framing and ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Before coming to Georgetown, Treanor was Dean and Paul Fuller Professor of Law at Fordham Law School. He also has served in a variety of positions in the government. He was law clerk to the Honorable James L. Oakes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Treanor has a Ph.D. in history from Harvard University, a B.A. from Yale College (summa cum laude) and a J.D. from Yale Law School.
讲座摘要：
今天美国最高法院有四名成员都自称是文本主义者。他们声称自己作为文本主义者，会根据宪法文字的原初含义来解释。但这种进路漏掉了关键一步。真正的文本主义法官应当和建国时期的法官一样阅读宪法文本并做出解释，而不只是简单地遵循文本的原初含义。虽然现在的学者和法官并未认识到这一点，但这种做法的确存在于共和国早期的案例中；通过研究这些案例，会帮助我们揭示法院最初如何解释文本。早期法院在司法审查时，并不只是简单从句法上分析文本。法官会尊重立法者的决定，除非出现以下两种情况：1、立法涉及司法权或陪审团的权力；2、州立法削弱了国家权力。当这两种情况出现，法院才会能动地审查立法。今天最高法院里的文本主义者所做的恰恰与历史上的文本主义进路相反，他们保护州权同时能动地审查国会立法。一种适当的文本主义会加强国会的一般权力，同时增加州立法机关和国会以不违反第二修正案的方式规制枪支使用的权力。
Four members of the United States Supreme Court describe themselves as textualists and say that, as textualists, they interpret the Constitution in accordance with the original meaning of its words. But this approach misses a critical step. Textualist judges should interpret the text of the Constitution, not simply in accordance with the original meaning of the text, but as judges at the time of the Founding would have read the text. While scholars and jurists have generally failed to recognize it, there was a substantial body of judicial review case law in the early republic and study of that case law reveals how courts originally read text. In exercising judicial review, early courts did not simply parse text. They deferred to the decisions of legislators except when 1) the statute implicated judicial power or the power of juries; or 2) a state statute undercut national power. In both categories one and two, courts aggressively reviewed statutes. Modern textualists on the Court protect state power and aggressively review congressional statutes, but a historically grounded textualism approach would lead to results that are the exact opposite. A proper textualism would strengthen the power of Congress generally as well increasing the power of state legislatures and Congress to, among other things, regulate gun usage without running afoul of the Second Amendment.
讲座海报：
