woodpig
加入时间: 2008/01/02
文章: 463
经验值: 16418
|
|
|
作者：woodpig 在 驴鸣镇 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
http://robertdfeinman.com/society/wealth_distribution.html
感觉此文作者有点欺人不懂英文，特别当文中举的这些判例都很少有中文资料。
比如引用的2007年Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation案例，
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hein_v._Freedom_From_Religion_Foundation
根据英文wiki，虽然最高法院的判决是taxpayers do not have the right to challenge the constitutionality of expenditures by the executive branch of the government.（注意用词是合乎宪法的政府支出），但此案实际上是起诉布什政府下令建立并且由联邦资助的White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives，关于这个组织可见
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Community_Initiatives
它的性质是布什为了兑现其竞选承诺 "compassionate conservatism." （俺勉强能翻译为“慈悲的保守主义”。起诉人的理由是反对联邦政府资助特别的宗教组织，认为这违反了Establishment Clause，而起诉方不幸落败的主要原因之一是起诉的三个法人代表Anne Nicol Gaylor, Annie Laurie Gaylor, & Dan Barker来自一个非盈利性组织Freedom From Religion Foundation，是免于缴税的，所以自动丧失了纳税人的权利资格（lacks taxpayer status in its own right）。
把这个参杂入wealth redistribution的讨论可真有些贩卖私货的嫌疑 
至于关于taxing and spend clause，作者更不应该在漏掉最高法院的说法，因为宪法是由最高法院interpret，无论你怎样反对最高法院对宪法条文的具体操作诠释，你至少不能回避它。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause
从以上资料看来，关于此征税和花销法案最热烈的争议在于联邦党人和反联邦党人对国家政权组织的分歧。
To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law. Historically, however, the Anti-Federalists were wary of such an interpretation of this power during the ratification debates in the 1780s.[20][21] Due to the objections raised by the Anti-Federalists, Madison was prompted to author his contributions to the Federalist Papers, attempting to quell the Anti-Federalists' fears of any such abuse by the proposed national government and to counter Anti-Federalist arguments against the Constitution.
。。。。。
总之，恕我孤陋寡闻，看来我另找的资料来源没法拼凑出符合此文的讨论背景 
作者：woodpig 在 驴鸣镇 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
劫富济贫在美国合法化的历史(zt)
