美国的政治权利制度的制衡,打个比方吧。
美国的立法机构和行政机构,司法机构是一个“蛋糕”,
“分蛋糕”既是一项权力,也是一种行为,对这项权力作程序上的划分,就是将行使这一权力的行为过程加以划分。“分蛋糕”的行为,可以划分为“切”和“挑(先拿)”两项行为,将从事这两项行为的资格分别赋予参与分蛋糕的利益相关者,即程序的主体,就是“分权”;确定“切”和“挑”的规则,即“切的人最后拿”,就是对“切”和“挑”各自权力范围的界定,这个规则必须使一方的权利就是相对方的义务,正是这个规则使一权分成二权之后,产生制衡的效果。
参考
http://hi.baidu.com/daydaypaper/blog/item/945857ca9f0f5a40f31fe713.html美国政治制度是通过联邦最高法院对宪法的解释权保证的。(实际上是宪法),也是通过它实现的。
司法的独立,联邦最高法院对宪法的解释权,对整个社会制度的良好法治起到了非常大的作用!而美国政治制度的核心、其精髓也就正在于此了。但是,美国历史上并非一开始就是如此的,联邦最高法院对于宪法的解释权是最高法院自己争取来的,而这一权利的取得对美国的政治制度的影响可谓极其深远,可以说没有当年马歇尔大法官对于马布里诉麦迪逊案的判决,美国也不会有今天的状况,也不会有2000年的布什诉戈尔案,那么,2000年出现的美国总统选举危机就可能造成国家的混乱,就有可能使美国付出很高的代价!
联邦最高法院的权威来自于法律,来自于联邦宪法!联邦宪法在美国是最高的法律,是被广大民众所信仰的,可是,联邦宪法加上以后的修正案也就是仅仅六、七千字而已,是不可能涵括广博的社会中的所有问题的细节的,但这也正是其优势之所在,因为宪法条文的概括性,同时因为宪法的最高权威性,这就使得宪法的解释权成为一种有人民信仰的权力,有了人民的信仰,那么这种权力的权威就成了无可质疑的了!而联邦法院的权力全部就来源于它对宪法的解释权上!
美国人民所信仰的只是一种成制度化的法律,而不是某个人某些人的高尚的品德。联邦大法官们之所以为美国人民所敬仰和相信,其重要的决定因素绝对不可能是单单这些人的个人修养和品质,而是大法官们产生的过程,是那种成制度化的在法治的纬度内成为一种传统、一种信仰的运作体系。在这个制度中,没有任何人是权威的,没有任何人可以凌驾于法律之上而不受法律的约束。政治的民主之善的决定因素是良好的制衡体制,绝对的权利导致绝对的腐败,只有存在良好的制衡体制,并且这样的体制为人民所信仰,为统治者所信仰,那么法治才有可能真正地在现实中成功地运作。
【翻译】
The U.S. system of checks and balances of political rights, the right analogy.
American legislative bodies and administrative institutions, the judiciary is a "cake"
"Divide the cake" is both a power and an act of the power to make procedural division, is to exercise the power to the process of demarcation. "Divide the cake", can be divided into "cut" and "pick (Xian Na)," the two acts will be involved in these two acts were eligible to participate in sub-cake given to the stakeholders, that is the main process, that is, " The separation of powers "; to determine the" cut "and" pick "the rules, that is," all those who take the final, "is to" cut "and" pick "their power to define the scope of this rule must be party to the right side is relatively Obligations, the rule is to make a right into the second right after the checks and balances.
U.S. political system is adopted by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution's guarantee. (In fact the constitution), it is also achievable.
The independence of the judiciary, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, the whole social system of the rule of law has played a very good role! The U.S. political system at the core of its essence it is exactly the. However, the history of the United States is not the start of the case, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the Supreme Court to fight for their own, and the rights of access to the U.S. political system is very far-reaching impact, it can be said that there had been no Marshall Justice for the case of Marbury v. Madison decision, the United States would not have today's situation, there will not be in 2000 Bush v. Gore case, then the emergence in 2000 of the U.S. presidential election crisis could cause the country Confusion, it is possible to the United States pay a high price!
The authority of the Supreme Court from the law, from the Federal Constitution! In the United States of the Federal Constitution is the highest law is the general public believe, however, after the Federal Constitution to add the amendment is only six to seven thousand words, but it is impossible to cover a broad range of society in all aspects of the The details, but this is what their strengths lie, because the general provisions of the Constitution, at the same time as the highest authority of the Constitution, which makes the power of interpretation of the Constitution as a people have the power of faith, the people have faith, Then the power authority has become an unquestionable! The federal court's power comes on all of its power of interpretation of the Constitution on!
The American people believe in a just institutionalized into laws, rather than a person of some noble moral character. Federal judges are the reason for the American people and the admiration convinced that an important factor in the decision can not be just their personal self-cultivation and quality, but they have a Justice of the process into a kind of institutionalized in the rule of law The latitude to become a tradition, a belief in the operation of the system. Under such a system, no one is authoritative, no one is above the law and not subject to the law. Political democracy is a good determining factor in a good system of checks and balances, leading to the absolute right to absolute corruption, there is only a good system of checks and balances, and such a system for people of faith, for belief rulers, the rule of law will it be possible to truly In reality, to operate successfully.本回答被提问者采纳