美国宪法第九修正案研究
|
摘要
美国宪法第九修正案自1791年生效以来,先后得到国内多数州宪法和世界上许多国家(地区)宪法、国际人权公约的仿效,保障未列举权利已经成为当代宪法发展的趋势之一。但是,美国宪法第九修正案的司法性实施在最高法院内部和理论界都引发了经久不息的争议。这些争议包括：(1)原本设想为只能适用于联邦政府的第九修正案可否适用于州政府；(2)第九修正案是否应当由法院予以实施：(3)第九修正案究竟是权利推定条款还是对政府权力进行限制性解释的规则；(4)未列举权利的性质是什么；(5)第九修正案与“正当法律程序条款”相比究竟哪个更适宜充当未列举权利的确认依据,等等。本文在对第九修正案的诞生背景、过程和历史境遇进行梳理的基础上,运用历史分析、文本分析、价值分析、比较研究等方法对上述问题进行了探讨。
第一章介绍了第九修正案的诞生背景。第九修正案是为了弥补“权利法案”中的前8条修正案不能对公民权利进行详尽列举的不足而产生的,“权利法案”则是为了弥补1787年宪法(草案)仅有权力列举而无“权利法案”的缺陷而产生的,而1787年宪法(草案)又是为了纠正《邦联条款》所确立的“州权独立,邦联无权”的政治体制而产生的。按照《邦联条款》而成立的软弱无力的邦联政府不能解决美国建国之初所面临的内政外交难题,故以汉密尔顿、麦迪逊为首的联邦党人遂筹划起草了旨在建立一个强大的中央政府的1787年宪法(草案)。但是,该宪法(草案)缺少一部“权利法案”,这种宪法模式由于违反了殖民地时期形成的在成文宪法中附加权利法案的制宪传统而遭到了强烈的反对。为了保证3/4以上的州制宪会议能够批准宪法(草案),联邦党人承诺在宪法(草案)获得通过以后再附加一部“权利法案”。
第二章对第九修正案的诞生过程及生效后的历史境遇进行了梳理。在各州召开批准会议期间,弗吉尼亚等8个州提出了包括“权利法案”(草案)在内的宪法修正案草案,共186条。1789年6月麦迪逊在这些修正案草案的基础上,向第一届国会提出了“权利法案”草案,共9条,其中有5条得到了批准。经过文字处理后,这5条提案于1791年12月变成了后来的“权利法案”(共10条)。这5条提案中的第4.条原本是关于“权利保留”和“权力保留”的规定,经过文字处理后一分为二,形成了第九、十修正案。第九修正案生效后的历史境遇大致可以分为三个时期：(1)休眠期(1791—1965)。在1965年的Griswold v. Connecticut案之前,联邦最高法院一直把第九修正案看作是限制联邦权力的扩张、保障州自治权的工具而非保障个人权利的工具,这种解释使第九修正案与第十修正案在功能上发生混同。这个时期,第九修正案也几乎没有受到学术界的关注。(2)最高法院与学术界双重关注时期(1965—2000)。最高法院在Griswold v. Connecticut案中的多数意见首次依据第九修正案推导出已婚夫妇的隐私权,激活了作为权利保障条款的第九修正案。截止到2000年的Troxel v. Granville案,最高法院不仅一度发明了“第九修正案权利”的称谓,而且个别大法官在一系列案件中经常提及第九修正案。与此同时,学术界也对第九修正案开展了热烈的研讨。(3)仅仅受学术界关注时期(2000-)。自Troxel v. Granville案之后,最高法院的大法官们从未提及第九修正案,只有学术界在关注第九修正案,有美国学者认为第九修正案作为一个权利保障条款再次冬眠了。
第三章对第九修正案的理论渊源进行了论述。在欧洲的诸多思想家中,对美国建国之初的宪法理论起了直接影响的是洛克的“自然权利—社会契约”学说和爱德华啊克的普通法思想。这两种思想学说的结合在实践中产生的一个效果是,在“权利法案”诞生之前,某些州法院已经开始诉诸自然法来界定自然权利,并通过限制行政权和立法权来保护自然权利。与此同时,“建国者们”也将自然权利写进了《独立宣言》、《邦联条款》以及为1787年宪法(草案)的完善而起草的宪法修正案。麦迪逊起草的第九修正案草案中的语句other rights retained by the people所指称的当然是自然权利。所以,第九修正案是对自然权利的表达。
第四章是对第九修正案文本的解读。第九修正案是美国宪法文本中最具有开放性的条款,中国读者对其字义存在着形形色色的理解。在美国读者中,对于能否从第九修正案中推导出公民的未列举权利则存在着“否定说”与“肯定说”的对立。本文在对第九修正案的汉语表达方式进行探讨的基础上,证成了“肯定说”,将第九修正案视为“权利推定条款”,同时认为,第九修正案虽然为未列举权利的确认提供了文本依据,但为了防范法院自由裁量权的过度行使,第九修正案只宜作为未列举权利的间接来源,法院可以把宪法的其它条款、普通法、州法作为未列举权利的直接来源。第九修正案为法院从这些直接法源中认定未列举权利提供了合法性。
第五章以Griswold v. Connecticut案为例,对第九修正案是否应当由法院实施以及第九修正案的空间效力范围进行了探讨。Griswold v. Connecticut案是联邦最高法院援引第九修正案确认未列举权利的第一个案件,同时也引发了两点质疑：(1)由非民选的法院实施第九修正案对民选机关所制定的法律进行违宪审查是否有违民主、法治原则?按照麦迪逊、汉密尔顿等人的论述,“权利法案”应当由最少危险的司法部门来实施,以避免“多数主义暴政”的危险。从司法权的性质来看,司法机关比立法机关更胜任制度性判断,而且由司法机关解释宪法也符合普通法传统。从实践角度看,由司法机关解释宪法的“释宪式宪法演进模式”比由立法机关修改宪法的“立宪式宪法演进模式”更有利于维护宪法的稳定性。因此,由法院来实施第九修正案并宣布立法机关的法律违宪也许并不违反民主、法治原则,而是有正当性的。(2)原本用于防范联邦政府的第九修正案是否可以适用于州政府?在“权利法案”制定之时,州政府被视为公民权利的捍卫者,而联邦政府的管理被视为一种“外来的统治”。在这个意义上可以断定,第九修正案仅适用于联邦政府的观点符合“制宪者意图”。但历史表明,州政府和联邦政府都会侵害公民权利,因此,对第九修正案的解释应当符合这种客观情势,即第九修正案既可适用联邦政府也可适用于州政府。
第六章对第九修正案与“正当法律程序条款”的权利推定功能进行了比较。在Griswold v. Connecticut案中,最高法院的多数大法官们以第九修正案为主要依据确认婚姻隐私权的做法由于存在着过度行使自由裁量权的嫌疑而受到了少数派大法官和学术界的批评。在认定其它未列举权利时,最高法院的大法官们逐渐转向对“正当法律程序条款”的援引而对第九修正案避而不谈,这被某些学者视为“实体性正当程序”原则的复兴。但是,最高法院的这种做法招致了更为激烈的批评。首先是“实体性正当程序”的称谓本身存在矛盾,其次是试图从“正当法律程序条款”中的“自由”概念中推导出“权利”违反了“宪法权利”与“宪法自由”之间的源流关系。同时,以“正当法律程序条款”为依据认定未列举权利同样存在着过度行使自由裁量权的嫌疑。因此,一个可能的结论是,第九修正案比“正当法律程序条款”更适宜充当未列举权利的文本依据。
第七章对第九修正案权利的范围和性质进行了分析,并对认定这种权利的方法和判断标准进行了论述。第九修正案所指称的未列举权利包括宪法主文、“权利法案”(前8条修正案)、已经生效并且继续有效的其它16条修正案中明确列举的权利以及从其中关于权力的禁止性规定中推导出来的那些权利。从性质上来说,未列举权利既包括消极权利也包括积极权利,这些权利是个人权利而非集体权利,是基本权利而非所有的权利自由。法院在认定未列举权利时,如果运用原旨主义方法、文本主义方法、山东大学博士学位论文
建构性的方法、推定的方法、综合的方法等方法,可以在某种程度上减轻滥用自由裁
量权的嫌疑。一项未列举权利如果得到了当代社会绝大多数人的认同,或者为国际人
权公约所确认,则应当认为法院对该项权利的确认具有了客观性。第八章对第九修正案的未来命运进行了评估。最高法院的态度对于第九修正案的
命运具有决定性的影响。尽管自2000年的Troxel v.Granville案之后,最高法院
对第九修正案避而不提,但这并不意味着21世纪是第九修正案被尘封的时代。从最
高法院现有大法官们的教育背景、职业经历、司法哲学倾向、文本主义的复兴等因素
来看,当社会上产生某种未列举权利请求而需要最高法院提供宪法保护时,个别大法
官仍有可能援引第九修正案对这种权利需求进行确认和保障。第九章论述了美国宪法第九修正案对我国实施“人权条款”的启示。构建和谐社
会的关键是保障公民权利,宪法列举的和未列举的公民权利都应当得到保障。由于未
列举权利的保障较之列举权利的保障更为复杂,且我国无经验可循,故需借鉴外国的
经验。美国宪法第九修正案的效力机制表明,未列举权利请求的提出、违宪审查制度
的确立、自然权利学说的传播是未列举权利条款得以实施的必要条件。积极发掘并传
播具有本土特色的人权文化,进一步完善宪法监督制度使之发挥人权保障功能,根据
人权保障的现实需要对“人权条款”作出合理化解释,我国“人权条款”才有可能得
到实施。
Since it came into effect in 1791, the Ninth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution had been copied both by constitutions of vast majority of the states domestically and many countries abroad and by "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" and "International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights", which indicates that it's one of the modern trends of constitutional development to protect unenumerated rights. But the judicial enforcement of the Ninth Amendment has caused prolonged debates including the follows:(1) whether the Ninth Amendment which was intended to apply to the federal government is applicable to the state governments? (2) whether the Ninth Amendment ought to be applied by the court? (3) Is the Ninth Amendment a right-presumption provision or a rule of construction that confirms that the federal government is one of limited powers? (4) What kind of rights are unenumerated rights in their nature? (5) Whether the Ninth Amendment or the "due process clause of law" is more suitable for the basis of identifying the unenumerated right? This dissertation, resorting to such methods as historical analysis, textual analysis, axiological analysis and comparative analysis, discusses those questions above after a review of the Ninth Amendment's formulation background, formulation process and its historical circumstances.
Chapter 1 is an introduction of the Ninth Amendment's formulation background. The Ninth Amendment was made to remedy the shortcoming of the "Bill of Rights" that its first 8 amendments could not exhaust all the fundamental rights of the people; The "Bill of Rights" was introduced to remedy the shortcoming of the drafted Constitution (1787) that it enumerated all the powers delegated to the government but lacked a declaration of rights; While the drafted Constitution (1787) was drafted to correct the political system of "the state sovereignty independent, the Confederation no power" that was founded on the basis of the Articles of Confederation(1777). The drafted Constitution(1787)was intended as the basis for a powerful central government by Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, but it caused fierce opposition against its ratification for its lack of a declaration of rights, because it is a constitutional tradition formed in the colony era that the written constitution should include a declaration of rights. In order that 3/4 of the 13 states Ratification Conventions may pass the drafted Constitution (1787), the Federalists promised to add a declaration of rights to it after its passage.
Chapter 2 is a review of the Ninth Amendment's formulation process and its historical circumstances. During the Ratification Convention period, Virginia and other 7 states put forward 186 clauses of proposed amendments including proposed bill of rights, on the basis of which Madison, in June,1789, introduced to the First Congress a proposed "Bill of Rights" of 9 clauses among which only 5 clauses were adopted. After wording disposition, those 5 clauses became the later "Bill of Rights" (including 10 clauses) in December, 1791. The original contents of "retained rights" and "retained powers" contained in the 4th among the 5 clauses turned respectively into present AmendmentⅨand AmendmentⅩ. The Ninth Amendment's historical circumstances after its passage can be divided into 3 periods:(1)The hibernation period(1791—1965). Before Griswold v. Connecticut(1965), the Ninth Amendment had been described by the Supreme Court as a rule limiting the interpreted scope of federal power in order to preserve state regulatory autonomy, not as a provision protecting individual rights. This kind of interpretation resulted in a functional confusion between the Ninth and Tenth Amendment, and the former was replaced functionally by the latter. During this period, academic circles paid least attention to the Ninth Amendment. (2) The period that the Ninth Amendment drew double attention from the Supreme Court and academic circles (1965—2000). In Griswold v. Connecticut(1965), the majority opinions of the Supreme Court inferred the unenumerated marital privacy right from the Ninth Amendment which was activated as a "right protection clause" for the first time. Up to Troxel v. Granville (2000), not only had the term "the Ninth Amendment Right" once been invented by the Supreme Court, but also had the Ninth Amendment been mentioned by some justices in a series of cases. Simultaneously, the Ninth Amendment had been discussed warmly in the academic circles. (3) The period that the Ninth Amendment drew unilateral attention from the academic circles (2000—). Since Troxel v. Granville (2000), the Supreme Court had never mentioned the Ninth Amendment, while only the academic circles had been discussing the Ninth Amendment, thus some American scholars say that the Ninth Amendment, as a right protection clause, has hibernated once again.
Chapter 3 is a discussion about the Ninth Amendment's theoretical source. Among the European thinkers, it was John Locke, whose "Natural Rights-Social Compact Theory", and Edward Coke, whose "Common Law Thought", that influenced the Founders' constitutional idea directly. Before the emergence of the "Bill of Rights" (1791), some state courts began resorting to natural law to define natural rights and protected them through limitation of legislative and executive powers. Meanwhile, the Founders put the term "natural right(s)" into Declaration of Independence (1776), Articles of Confederation (1777) and the proposed amendments to the drafted Constitution (1787). To what does the phrase "other rights retained by the people", in Madison's proposed amendments, refer is naturally natural rights. Therefore, the Ninth Amendment is a description of natural rights.
Chapter 4 is a literal reading of the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment's text is the most open-ended provision, in the U. S. Constitution, of whose literal meaning there exist many understanding in its Chinese readers. As far as whether the unenumerated individual rights can be inferred from it is concerned, there exists an opposition between two groups of its American readers. One group holds a positive answer, while the other a negative one. This article justified the former on the basis of a research into the Chinese version of the Ninth Amendment and regard the Ninth Amendment as a "right(s) presumption clause". In the meantime, this article concludes that the Ninth Amendment should only be used as an indirect source of unenumerated rights by the courts lest the judicial discretion might be abused; that other provisions of the Constitution, the common law and state laws should be used as direct sources of unenumerated rights; that the Ninth Amendment provides lawful base for the judicial identification of unenumerated right(s) under these direct sources.
Chapter 5 is a discussion about the Ninth Amendment's judicial applicability and its scope of spatial validity taking Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) as an example. Griswold v. Connecticut(1965) was the first case for the Supreme Court to quote the Ninth Amendment identifying an unenumerated right, but the quotation raised two doubts:(1) Whether the review of constitutionality, performed by an non-democratically elected court against the law made by an democratically elected legislature, violates both the doctrine of democracy and the principle of rule of law? According to the exposition of the Framers such as Madison and Hamilton, the "Bill of Rights" should be applied by the least dangerous judicial branches in order to avoid the jeopardy of "majoritarian tyranny". From the viewpoint of the nature of judicial power, the judicial branch is fitter for institutional judgments than the legislative organization. It does fit the common law tradition for the judicial branch to interpret the constitution. From the viewpoint of practice, the pattern of constitutional evaluation through interpretation by judicial branch is better to maintain the constitutional stability than the pattern of constitutional evaluation through framing. Thus, it is appropriate and probably do not violate the doctrine of democracy and the principle of rule of law for the court to apply the Ninth Amendment and declare the law unconstitutional. (2) Whether the Ninth Amendment, which was originally intended to apply to the federal government, can be applied to the state governments? When the "Bill of Rights" was formulated, the state governments were regarded as the defenders of civil rights while the federal government's management one kind of "foreign rule". In this sense, the viewpoint that the Ninth Amendment is applicable only to the federal government accords with the "Framer's intention". The history shows that both the federal and state governments can do harm to civil rights, so the Ninth Amendment shall be interpreted under such circumstances that it is applicable to both the federal and state governments.
Chapter 6 is an analysis of the Ninth Amendment's right-presumption function in comparison with that of the "due process clause of law". In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the majority of the justices' practice identifying unenumerated marital privacy mainly on the basis of the Ninth Amendment was criticized by the minority of justices and the scholars because of the suspicion about abused judicial discretion. In identifying other unenumerated rights, the justices of the Supreme Court turned their attentions to the "due process clause of law" instead of the Ninth Amendment, which is called by some scholars the revival of "substantive due process of law" doctrine. In fact, the new practice of the Supreme Court had resulted in sharper criticism than ever because:(1) There exist contradiction in the term "substantive due process" itself; (2) It violates the source-course relationship between the constitutional right and constitutional freedom to infer "right" from the concept "freedom" in the "due process clause of law"; (3) It is similarly suspicious of abused judicial discretion to identify unenumerated right on the basis of "due process clause of law". As a result, the recommendable answer is that the Ninth Amendment is a more suitable textual base for unenumerated right than the "due process clause of law".
Chapter 7 is both an analysis of the Ninth Amendment rights' scope and nature and a discussion about those rights' identification methods and judging standards as well. The unenumerated rights to which the Ninth Amendment refers include those enumerated in the main body of the Constitution, the first 8 amendments of the "Bill of Rights" and the other 16 effective amendments, and those that can be inferred from the restrictive provisions of powers as well. From the viewpoint of their natures, the unenumerated rights include negative and positive rights; they are individual rights, not collective rights; they are fundamental rights, not non-fundamental rights. In identifying unenumerated rights, the court will be less suspicious of abusing judicial discretion if some methods, such as the original method, the textual method, the constructive method, the presumptive method and the synthetic method, etc., are applied. An unenumerated right should be considered being identified objectively by the court if it is accepted by the public or it is recorded in the international conventions on human rights.
Chapter 8 is an evaluation of the Ninth Amendment's future. The attitude of the Supreme Court is decisive toward the future of the Ninth Amendment. Although the Ninth Amendment had never been mentioned by the Supreme Court (or the justices) since Troxel v. Granville (2000), this does not mean that the starting 21st century may be an era that the Ninth Amendment be covered with dust. Viewed from the educational background, the professional experience and the judicial philosophy trends of the justices and the renaissance of textualism, some justices may cite the Ninth Amendment to identify and protect an unenumerated right once an unenumerated right requirement emerges and is ultimately sued before the Bench for protection.
Chapter 9 is concerned about the inspiration from the Ninth Amendment to China. The protection of civil rights is the key to construct a harmonious society. That is to say that both the enumerated and the unenumerated rights ought to be protected. Since it is more complicated to protect the unenumerated rights than it is to protect the enumerated ones, the use of foreign experiences as a source of reference is a must. The validity mechanism of the Ninth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution shows that the feasible approaches to the implementation of our Human Right Clause may include the follows:the existence of the unenumerated right claims, the consummation of our current constitutional supervision system and the full play of its Human Right protection function as well as the reasonable interpretation of the Human Right Clause.
第一章介绍了第九修正案的诞生背景。第九修正案是为了弥补“权利法案”中的前8条修正案不能对公民权利进行详尽列举的不足而产生的,“权利法案”则是为了弥补1787年宪法(草案)仅有权力列举而无“权利法案”的缺陷而产生的,而1787年宪法(草案)又是为了纠正《邦联条款》所确立的“州权独立,邦联无权”的政治体制而产生的。按照《邦联条款》而成立的软弱无力的邦联政府不能解决美国建国之初所面临的内政外交难题,故以汉密尔顿、麦迪逊为首的联邦党人遂筹划起草了旨在建立一个强大的中央政府的1787年宪法(草案)。但是,该宪法(草案)缺少一部“权利法案”,这种宪法模式由于违反了殖民地时期形成的在成文宪法中附加权利法案的制宪传统而遭到了强烈的反对。为了保证3/4以上的州制宪会议能够批准宪法(草案),联邦党人承诺在宪法(草案)获得通过以后再附加一部“权利法案”。
第二章对第九修正案的诞生过程及生效后的历史境遇进行了梳理。在各州召开批准会议期间,弗吉尼亚等8个州提出了包括“权利法案”(草案)在内的宪法修正案草案,共186条。1789年6月麦迪逊在这些修正案草案的基础上,向第一届国会提出了“权利法案”草案,共9条,其中有5条得到了批准。经过文字处理后,这5条提案于1791年12月变成了后来的“权利法案”(共10条)。这5条提案中的第4.条原本是关于“权利保留”和“权力保留”的规定,经过文字处理后一分为二,形成了第九、十修正案。第九修正案生效后的历史境遇大致可以分为三个时期：(1)休眠期(1791—1965)。在1965年的Griswold v. Connecticut案之前,联邦最高法院一直把第九修正案看作是限制联邦权力的扩张、保障州自治权的工具而非保障个人权利的工具,这种解释使第九修正案与第十修正案在功能上发生混同。这个时期,第九修正案也几乎没有受到学术界的关注。(2)最高法院与学术界双重关注时期(1965—2000)。最高法院在Griswold v. Connecticut案中的多数意见首次依据第九修正案推导出已婚夫妇的隐私权,激活了作为权利保障条款的第九修正案。截止到2000年的Troxel v. Granville案,最高法院不仅一度发明了“第九修正案权利”的称谓,而且个别大法官在一系列案件中经常提及第九修正案。与此同时,学术界也对第九修正案开展了热烈的研讨。(3)仅仅受学术界关注时期(2000-)。自Troxel v. Granville案之后,最高法院的大法官们从未提及第九修正案,只有学术界在关注第九修正案,有美国学者认为第九修正案作为一个权利保障条款再次冬眠了。
第三章对第九修正案的理论渊源进行了论述。在欧洲的诸多思想家中,对美国建国之初的宪法理论起了直接影响的是洛克的“自然权利—社会契约”学说和爱德华啊克的普通法思想。这两种思想学说的结合在实践中产生的一个效果是,在“权利法案”诞生之前,某些州法院已经开始诉诸自然法来界定自然权利,并通过限制行政权和立法权来保护自然权利。与此同时,“建国者们”也将自然权利写进了《独立宣言》、《邦联条款》以及为1787年宪法(草案)的完善而起草的宪法修正案。麦迪逊起草的第九修正案草案中的语句other rights retained by the people所指称的当然是自然权利。所以,第九修正案是对自然权利的表达。
第四章是对第九修正案文本的解读。第九修正案是美国宪法文本中最具有开放性的条款,中国读者对其字义存在着形形色色的理解。在美国读者中,对于能否从第九修正案中推导出公民的未列举权利则存在着“否定说”与“肯定说”的对立。本文在对第九修正案的汉语表达方式进行探讨的基础上,证成了“肯定说”,将第九修正案视为“权利推定条款”,同时认为,第九修正案虽然为未列举权利的确认提供了文本依据,但为了防范法院自由裁量权的过度行使,第九修正案只宜作为未列举权利的间接来源,法院可以把宪法的其它条款、普通法、州法作为未列举权利的直接来源。第九修正案为法院从这些直接法源中认定未列举权利提供了合法性。
第五章以Griswold v. Connecticut案为例,对第九修正案是否应当由法院实施以及第九修正案的空间效力范围进行了探讨。Griswold v. Connecticut案是联邦最高法院援引第九修正案确认未列举权利的第一个案件,同时也引发了两点质疑：(1)由非民选的法院实施第九修正案对民选机关所制定的法律进行违宪审查是否有违民主、法治原则?按照麦迪逊、汉密尔顿等人的论述,“权利法案”应当由最少危险的司法部门来实施,以避免“多数主义暴政”的危险。从司法权的性质来看,司法机关比立法机关更胜任制度性判断,而且由司法机关解释宪法也符合普通法传统。从实践角度看,由司法机关解释宪法的“释宪式宪法演进模式”比由立法机关修改宪法的“立宪式宪法演进模式”更有利于维护宪法的稳定性。因此,由法院来实施第九修正案并宣布立法机关的法律违宪也许并不违反民主、法治原则,而是有正当性的。(2)原本用于防范联邦政府的第九修正案是否可以适用于州政府?在“权利法案”制定之时,州政府被视为公民权利的捍卫者,而联邦政府的管理被视为一种“外来的统治”。在这个意义上可以断定,第九修正案仅适用于联邦政府的观点符合“制宪者意图”。但历史表明,州政府和联邦政府都会侵害公民权利,因此,对第九修正案的解释应当符合这种客观情势,即第九修正案既可适用联邦政府也可适用于州政府。
第六章对第九修正案与“正当法律程序条款”的权利推定功能进行了比较。在Griswold v. Connecticut案中,最高法院的多数大法官们以第九修正案为主要依据确认婚姻隐私权的做法由于存在着过度行使自由裁量权的嫌疑而受到了少数派大法官和学术界的批评。在认定其它未列举权利时,最高法院的大法官们逐渐转向对“正当法律程序条款”的援引而对第九修正案避而不谈,这被某些学者视为“实体性正当程序”原则的复兴。但是,最高法院的这种做法招致了更为激烈的批评。首先是“实体性正当程序”的称谓本身存在矛盾,其次是试图从“正当法律程序条款”中的“自由”概念中推导出“权利”违反了“宪法权利”与“宪法自由”之间的源流关系。同时,以“正当法律程序条款”为依据认定未列举权利同样存在着过度行使自由裁量权的嫌疑。因此,一个可能的结论是,第九修正案比“正当法律程序条款”更适宜充当未列举权利的文本依据。
第七章对第九修正案权利的范围和性质进行了分析,并对认定这种权利的方法和判断标准进行了论述。第九修正案所指称的未列举权利包括宪法主文、“权利法案”(前8条修正案)、已经生效并且继续有效的其它16条修正案中明确列举的权利以及从其中关于权力的禁止性规定中推导出来的那些权利。从性质上来说,未列举权利既包括消极权利也包括积极权利,这些权利是个人权利而非集体权利,是基本权利而非所有的权利自由。法院在认定未列举权利时,如果运用原旨主义方法、文本主义方法、山东大学博士学位论文
建构性的方法、推定的方法、综合的方法等方法,可以在某种程度上减轻滥用自由裁
量权的嫌疑。一项未列举权利如果得到了当代社会绝大多数人的认同,或者为国际人
权公约所确认,则应当认为法院对该项权利的确认具有了客观性。第八章对第九修正案的未来命运进行了评估。最高法院的态度对于第九修正案的
命运具有决定性的影响。尽管自2000年的Troxel v.Granville案之后,最高法院
对第九修正案避而不提,但这并不意味着21世纪是第九修正案被尘封的时代。从最
高法院现有大法官们的教育背景、职业经历、司法哲学倾向、文本主义的复兴等因素
来看,当社会上产生某种未列举权利请求而需要最高法院提供宪法保护时,个别大法
官仍有可能援引第九修正案对这种权利需求进行确认和保障。第九章论述了美国宪法第九修正案对我国实施“人权条款”的启示。构建和谐社
会的关键是保障公民权利,宪法列举的和未列举的公民权利都应当得到保障。由于未
列举权利的保障较之列举权利的保障更为复杂,且我国无经验可循,故需借鉴外国的
经验。美国宪法第九修正案的效力机制表明,未列举权利请求的提出、违宪审查制度
的确立、自然权利学说的传播是未列举权利条款得以实施的必要条件。积极发掘并传
播具有本土特色的人权文化,进一步完善宪法监督制度使之发挥人权保障功能,根据
人权保障的现实需要对“人权条款”作出合理化解释,我国“人权条款”才有可能得
到实施。
Since it came into effect in 1791, the Ninth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution had been copied both by constitutions of vast majority of the states domestically and many countries abroad and by "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" and "International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights", which indicates that it's one of the modern trends of constitutional development to protect unenumerated rights. But the judicial enforcement of the Ninth Amendment has caused prolonged debates including the follows:(1) whether the Ninth Amendment which was intended to apply to the federal government is applicable to the state governments? (2) whether the Ninth Amendment ought to be applied by the court? (3) Is the Ninth Amendment a right-presumption provision or a rule of construction that confirms that the federal government is one of limited powers? (4) What kind of rights are unenumerated rights in their nature? (5) Whether the Ninth Amendment or the "due process clause of law" is more suitable for the basis of identifying the unenumerated right? This dissertation, resorting to such methods as historical analysis, textual analysis, axiological analysis and comparative analysis, discusses those questions above after a review of the Ninth Amendment's formulation background, formulation process and its historical circumstances.
Chapter 1 is an introduction of the Ninth Amendment's formulation background. The Ninth Amendment was made to remedy the shortcoming of the "Bill of Rights" that its first 8 amendments could not exhaust all the fundamental rights of the people; The "Bill of Rights" was introduced to remedy the shortcoming of the drafted Constitution (1787) that it enumerated all the powers delegated to the government but lacked a declaration of rights; While the drafted Constitution (1787) was drafted to correct the political system of "the state sovereignty independent, the Confederation no power" that was founded on the basis of the Articles of Confederation(1777). The drafted Constitution(1787)was intended as the basis for a powerful central government by Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, but it caused fierce opposition against its ratification for its lack of a declaration of rights, because it is a constitutional tradition formed in the colony era that the written constitution should include a declaration of rights. In order that 3/4 of the 13 states Ratification Conventions may pass the drafted Constitution (1787), the Federalists promised to add a declaration of rights to it after its passage.
Chapter 2 is a review of the Ninth Amendment's formulation process and its historical circumstances. During the Ratification Convention period, Virginia and other 7 states put forward 186 clauses of proposed amendments including proposed bill of rights, on the basis of which Madison, in June,1789, introduced to the First Congress a proposed "Bill of Rights" of 9 clauses among which only 5 clauses were adopted. After wording disposition, those 5 clauses became the later "Bill of Rights" (including 10 clauses) in December, 1791. The original contents of "retained rights" and "retained powers" contained in the 4th among the 5 clauses turned respectively into present AmendmentⅨand AmendmentⅩ. The Ninth Amendment's historical circumstances after its passage can be divided into 3 periods:(1)The hibernation period(1791—1965). Before Griswold v. Connecticut(1965), the Ninth Amendment had been described by the Supreme Court as a rule limiting the interpreted scope of federal power in order to preserve state regulatory autonomy, not as a provision protecting individual rights. This kind of interpretation resulted in a functional confusion between the Ninth and Tenth Amendment, and the former was replaced functionally by the latter. During this period, academic circles paid least attention to the Ninth Amendment. (2) The period that the Ninth Amendment drew double attention from the Supreme Court and academic circles (1965—2000). In Griswold v. Connecticut(1965), the majority opinions of the Supreme Court inferred the unenumerated marital privacy right from the Ninth Amendment which was activated as a "right protection clause" for the first time. Up to Troxel v. Granville (2000), not only had the term "the Ninth Amendment Right" once been invented by the Supreme Court, but also had the Ninth Amendment been mentioned by some justices in a series of cases. Simultaneously, the Ninth Amendment had been discussed warmly in the academic circles. (3) The period that the Ninth Amendment drew unilateral attention from the academic circles (2000—). Since Troxel v. Granville (2000), the Supreme Court had never mentioned the Ninth Amendment, while only the academic circles had been discussing the Ninth Amendment, thus some American scholars say that the Ninth Amendment, as a right protection clause, has hibernated once again.
Chapter 3 is a discussion about the Ninth Amendment's theoretical source. Among the European thinkers, it was John Locke, whose "Natural Rights-Social Compact Theory", and Edward Coke, whose "Common Law Thought", that influenced the Founders' constitutional idea directly. Before the emergence of the "Bill of Rights" (1791), some state courts began resorting to natural law to define natural rights and protected them through limitation of legislative and executive powers. Meanwhile, the Founders put the term "natural right(s)" into Declaration of Independence (1776), Articles of Confederation (1777) and the proposed amendments to the drafted Constitution (1787). To what does the phrase "other rights retained by the people", in Madison's proposed amendments, refer is naturally natural rights. Therefore, the Ninth Amendment is a description of natural rights.
Chapter 4 is a literal reading of the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment's text is the most open-ended provision, in the U. S. Constitution, of whose literal meaning there exist many understanding in its Chinese readers. As far as whether the unenumerated individual rights can be inferred from it is concerned, there exists an opposition between two groups of its American readers. One group holds a positive answer, while the other a negative one. This article justified the former on the basis of a research into the Chinese version of the Ninth Amendment and regard the Ninth Amendment as a "right(s) presumption clause". In the meantime, this article concludes that the Ninth Amendment should only be used as an indirect source of unenumerated rights by the courts lest the judicial discretion might be abused; that other provisions of the Constitution, the common law and state laws should be used as direct sources of unenumerated rights; that the Ninth Amendment provides lawful base for the judicial identification of unenumerated right(s) under these direct sources.
Chapter 5 is a discussion about the Ninth Amendment's judicial applicability and its scope of spatial validity taking Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) as an example. Griswold v. Connecticut(1965) was the first case for the Supreme Court to quote the Ninth Amendment identifying an unenumerated right, but the quotation raised two doubts:(1) Whether the review of constitutionality, performed by an non-democratically elected court against the law made by an democratically elected legislature, violates both the doctrine of democracy and the principle of rule of law? According to the exposition of the Framers such as Madison and Hamilton, the "Bill of Rights" should be applied by the least dangerous judicial branches in order to avoid the jeopardy of "majoritarian tyranny". From the viewpoint of the nature of judicial power, the judicial branch is fitter for institutional judgments than the legislative organization. It does fit the common law tradition for the judicial branch to interpret the constitution. From the viewpoint of practice, the pattern of constitutional evaluation through interpretation by judicial branch is better to maintain the constitutional stability than the pattern of constitutional evaluation through framing. Thus, it is appropriate and probably do not violate the doctrine of democracy and the principle of rule of law for the court to apply the Ninth Amendment and declare the law unconstitutional. (2) Whether the Ninth Amendment, which was originally intended to apply to the federal government, can be applied to the state governments? When the "Bill of Rights" was formulated, the state governments were regarded as the defenders of civil rights while the federal government's management one kind of "foreign rule". In this sense, the viewpoint that the Ninth Amendment is applicable only to the federal government accords with the "Framer's intention". The history shows that both the federal and state governments can do harm to civil rights, so the Ninth Amendment shall be interpreted under such circumstances that it is applicable to both the federal and state governments.
Chapter 6 is an analysis of the Ninth Amendment's right-presumption function in comparison with that of the "due process clause of law". In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the majority of the justices' practice identifying unenumerated marital privacy mainly on the basis of the Ninth Amendment was criticized by the minority of justices and the scholars because of the suspicion about abused judicial discretion. In identifying other unenumerated rights, the justices of the Supreme Court turned their attentions to the "due process clause of law" instead of the Ninth Amendment, which is called by some scholars the revival of "substantive due process of law" doctrine. In fact, the new practice of the Supreme Court had resulted in sharper criticism than ever because:(1) There exist contradiction in the term "substantive due process" itself; (2) It violates the source-course relationship between the constitutional right and constitutional freedom to infer "right" from the concept "freedom" in the "due process clause of law"; (3) It is similarly suspicious of abused judicial discretion to identify unenumerated right on the basis of "due process clause of law". As a result, the recommendable answer is that the Ninth Amendment is a more suitable textual base for unenumerated right than the "due process clause of law".
Chapter 7 is both an analysis of the Ninth Amendment rights' scope and nature and a discussion about those rights' identification methods and judging standards as well. The unenumerated rights to which the Ninth Amendment refers include those enumerated in the main body of the Constitution, the first 8 amendments of the "Bill of Rights" and the other 16 effective amendments, and those that can be inferred from the restrictive provisions of powers as well. From the viewpoint of their natures, the unenumerated rights include negative and positive rights; they are individual rights, not collective rights; they are fundamental rights, not non-fundamental rights. In identifying unenumerated rights, the court will be less suspicious of abusing judicial discretion if some methods, such as the original method, the textual method, the constructive method, the presumptive method and the synthetic method, etc., are applied. An unenumerated right should be considered being identified objectively by the court if it is accepted by the public or it is recorded in the international conventions on human rights.
Chapter 8 is an evaluation of the Ninth Amendment's future. The attitude of the Supreme Court is decisive toward the future of the Ninth Amendment. Although the Ninth Amendment had never been mentioned by the Supreme Court (or the justices) since Troxel v. Granville (2000), this does not mean that the starting 21st century may be an era that the Ninth Amendment be covered with dust. Viewed from the educational background, the professional experience and the judicial philosophy trends of the justices and the renaissance of textualism, some justices may cite the Ninth Amendment to identify and protect an unenumerated right once an unenumerated right requirement emerges and is ultimately sued before the Bench for protection.
Chapter 9 is concerned about the inspiration from the Ninth Amendment to China. The protection of civil rights is the key to construct a harmonious society. That is to say that both the enumerated and the unenumerated rights ought to be protected. Since it is more complicated to protect the unenumerated rights than it is to protect the enumerated ones, the use of foreign experiences as a source of reference is a must. The validity mechanism of the Ninth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution shows that the feasible approaches to the implementation of our Human Right Clause may include the follows:the existence of the unenumerated right claims, the consummation of our current constitutional supervision system and the full play of its Human Right protection function as well as the reasonable interpretation of the Human Right Clause.
引文
①参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第47页。
①参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第58页。
① George Washington to Jabez Bowen, Mount Vernon,29 January 1787. in Writings of George Washington, vol.29,PP.138—139.转引自王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第60—61页。
②华盛顿·欧文：《华盛顿传》,新华出版社1984年版。转引自李永清：“重评联邦主义者的政治思想”,《史学月刊》1994年第4期,第74页。
①参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第12—19页。
②关于这次修改《邦联条款》的会议是如何开成制宪会议的,有学者认为,会议的发起人汉密尔顿和麦迪逊也没有想到这次会议竟然成了后来的联邦制宪会议。参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第62页。尹宣认为,1787年制宪会议的发起者麦迪逊等人,名义上是要修改《邦联条款》,实际上是想用他们另外拟定的宪法来取代《邦联条款》。参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上)“译者例言”,尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第7页。笔者认为,尹宣的观点更为可取。
③关于制宪会议55名代表的知识背景和职业经历,参见[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第8、29页；[美]查尔斯·比尔德、玛丽·比尔德：《美国文明的兴起》(第一卷),许亚芬译,商务印书馆1991年版,第111页；曹绍濂：《美国政治制度史》,甘肃人民出版社1982年版,第15—16页。
①吴耘：《美国法治面面观》,北京大学出版社2002年版,第29页。
②[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》(上卷),董国良译,商务印书馆1988年版,第126页。
③周天玮：《法治理想国：苏格拉底与孟子的虚拟对话》,商务印书馆2000年版,第29页。
① See James v. calvi, Susan Coleman, American Law and Legal System,高等教育出版社2002年影印版,第140—153页。
②从总体上来看,“权利法案”前8条都是对“公民自由”的明文规定：正当程序则体现于第五、十四修正案。
③参见李步云主编：《宪法比较研究》,法律出版社1998年版,第622—623页。
①[法]孟德斯鸠：《论法的精神》(上册),张雁深译,商务印书馆1961年版,第154页。
①参见赵宝云：《西方五国宪法通论》,中国人民公安大学出版社1994年版,第75页。
②转引自任东来：“美国宪法的形成：一个历史的考察”,《社会科学论坛》2004年第12期,第30页。
③[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第29页。
① Virginia Declaration of Rights从英文字面来看可以直译为“弗吉尼亚权利宣言”,但流行的译文是“弗吉尼亚权利法案”。为方便读者,本文沿用流行的译法。
②[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》(上卷),董国良译,商务印书馆1988年版,第171页。
③汉密尔顿公开阐明,自由的崇高热情比政府的力量更加必然地导致专制道路。参见[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第5页。
④关于1787年美国宪法(草案)的制度创新的论述,参见[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第29—31页；.任东来：“美国宪法的形成：一个历史的考察”,《社会科学论坛》2004年第12期,第26页。
⑤[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第30页。
⑥参见[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》(上卷),董国良译,商务印书馆1988年版,第175页。
①[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》(上卷),董国良译,商务印书馆1988年版,第178页。
②参见[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第391—392页。
①关于1787年宪法(草案)的制约平衡机制的论述,参见任东来：“美国宪法的形成：一个历史的考察”,《社会科学论坛》2004年第12期,第24—25页。
②[法]孟德斯鸠：《论法的精神》(上册),张雁深译,商务印书馆1961年版,第154页。
③[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第29页。
④“联邦党人”的名称是在召开制宪会议前于纽约和东部各州兴起来的,意指那些反对优先考虑地方和具体利益,赞成支持合众国的人。参见[美]赫伯特·J·斯托林：《反联邦党人赞成什么——宪法反对者的政治思想》,汪庆华译,北京大学出版社2006年版,第14—15页。Federalist与Anti-federalist是一对反义词,前者的传统译法为“联邦党人”,后者的传统译法则为“反联邦党人”。 Federalist与Anti—federalist的对立奠定了美国两党政治的基础,但是,无论是“联邦党”还是“反联邦党”都不是正式的政治组织意义上的政党,而且“联邦党”在汉密尔顿去世前事实上即已经解体。为了与政治组织意义上的政党相区分,将Federalist译为“联邦主义者”、Anti—federalist译为“反联邦主义者”比较妥当。但为了避免制造生词,笔者在本文中沿用传统的译法。
①汉密尔顿并没有明确提出这样的观点,但这样的观点在其发言中是显而易见的。参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第142-148页。
②[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第5页。
③[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第5页。
④关于加强政府权力之必要性的论述,参见《联邦党人文集》第70篇,载[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第355—363页。
⑤[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》(上卷),董国良译,商务印书馆1988年版,第126页。
①参见威廉·皮尔斯：“对制宪会议代表的性格描述”,载[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(下)“附录五”,尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第840页。
①[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(下),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第774—776页。
②[美]马克斯·法仑德：《美国宪法的制定》,董成美译,中国人民大学出版社1987年版,第17页。
③这9个最早批准宪法(草案)的州的顺序是：①德拉瓦(1787年12月7日)、②宾夕法尼亚(1787年12月12日)、③新泽西(1787年12月18日)、④佐治亚(1788年1月2日)、⑤康涅狄格(1788年1月9日)、⑥马萨诸塞(1788年2月6日)、⑦马里兰(1788年4月28日)、⑧南卡罗来纳(1788年5月23日)、⑨新罕布什尔(1788年8月21日)。参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(下),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第887—888页。
①[美]查尔斯·比尔德：《美国宪法的经济观》,何希齐译,商务印书馆1984年版,第158—159页。
① See Albert. Beveridge, Life of John Marshall, vol.2, Houghton Mifflin,1916, P.379.
①该表有关数据,参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(下)“附表一”,尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第887—888页。
① See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 2,2d ed.,1836, PP.178—181.
② See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 3,2d ed.,1836, PP.587—596.
③ See Albert. Beveridge, Life of John Marshall, Houghton Mifflin, vol.1,1916, PP.307—309、324—325.
④参见[美]查尔斯·比尔德、玛丽·比尔德：《美国文明的兴起》(第一卷),许亚芬译,商务印书馆1991年版,第308页。
⑤参见[美]马克斯·法仑德：《美国宪法的制定》,董成美译,中国人民大学出版社1987年版,第13页。
①[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第96—97页。
②尹宣：“联邦制宪会议记录的解密和成书”,载[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第4页。
①[美]赫伯特·J·斯托林：《反联邦党人赞成什么——宪法反对者的政治思想》,汪庆华译,北京大学出版社2006年版,第3页。
②参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(下),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第743—744页。
③参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(下),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第770—771页。
④有历史学家认为,当乔治·梅森于9月15日提出制定“权利法案”这一问题时,制宪代表们已经疲惫不堪,需要回家了,故无耐心讨论这一论题。参见[美]塞缪尔·埃利奥特·莫里斯等：《美利坚共和国的成长》(上卷),南开大学历史系美国史研究室译,天津人民出版社1980年版,第331页。Calvin R. Massey认为,在本次制宪会议上,制宪代表们普遍担心的问题是各州蚕食中央政府权力而不是联邦权力取代州权力的问题,故他们对于联邦政府滥用权力的可能性不感兴趣。See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,81 (1992)笔者认为,Calvin R. Massey的观点更有道理。
① Letter to James Madison (Dec.20,1787),4 Writings of Jefferson 473,476—477. Exerpted from Eugene M. Van Loan III, Natural Rights and the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.154.
② Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.3. 2d ed.1836, P.462.
①[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第199页。
②[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(下),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第775页。
③[美]查尔斯·比尔德、玛丽·比尔德：《美国文明的兴起》(第一卷),许亚芬译,商务印书馆1991年版,第325页。
①[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第198页。
② George W·Garey, The Federalist:Design for a Constitutional Republic, University of Illinois Press,1989, P.107.
① J·R·Pole, ed., The American Constitution For and Against:the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers 10 (Hill and Wang,1987).转引自褚乐平：“《美国宪法》批准史探”,《美国研究》2003年第1期,第100—101页。
②[美]塞缪尔.埃利奥特·莫里斯等：《美利坚共和国的成长》(上卷),南开大学历史系美国史研究室译,天津人民出版社1980年版,第330页。
①对以上三个方面问题的归纳,参见褚乐平：“联邦党人与反联邦党人关于宪法批准问题的争论”,《史学月刊》2003年第7期。
②参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第100页。
①参见[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第426—434页。
② Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.2, 2d ed.1836,P.436.
③王希认为,宪法(草案)缺少专门的“权利法案”,是因为制宪代表们注重建立政府模式,忽略了“权利法案”。参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第100页。对于王希的观点,有学者提出了质疑,认为联邦党人未将“权利法案”写入宪法(草案)带有明确的目的,而非单纯的忽略。参见褚乐平：“联邦党人与反联邦党人关于宪法批准问题的争论”,《史学月刊》2003年第7期。
④[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第15页。
⑤参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第100页。
①日本虽然已经进入发达国家序列,但樋口阳—教授仍然从统治机构论的角度出发,主张日本有必要继续拘泥于西方近代的一些重要宪法原理。参见林来梵：《从宪法规范到规范宪法》,法律出版社2001年版,第27页。
② Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,1 vol.3, 2d ed.1836, P.317.
③参见[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第435页
④[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第357、362页。
①参见[美]约瑟夫·斯托里：《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店2006年,第561—564页。
②本部分中有关英属北美殖民地的建立及立法情况的史料,除注明出处者外,均参考了王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本)“第一章”、“第二章第一节”,北京大学出版社2000年版。
①[美]查尔斯·比尔德、玛丽·比尔德：《美国文明的兴起》(第一卷),许亚芬译,商务印书馆1991年版,第134页。
①一说《康涅狄格基本法》诞生于1639年。See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press,1977, P.28.
② See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, PP.28—29.
①[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第5页。
②这是王希教授的说法,参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000
年版,第48页。另有说法是,1776年6月29日通过的弗吉尼亚宪法是第一部正式的州宪法,参见[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美
国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第28页。
①关于1787年制宪会议之前各州宪法的制定时间,参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上),尹宣
译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第15页注[17]。
②[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第9页。
③ See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, P.27.
④ See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, PP.27—28.
⑤ See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977. P.33.
⑥ See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, PP.33、35.王希认为,1641年的《马萨诸塞自由法规》是英属北美殖民地最早的“权利法案”。参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第99页。
⑦ See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, P.35.
① See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977. P.1.
②参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第99—100页。
③[美]路易斯·亨金：《宪政与人权》,载路易斯·亨金、阿尔伯特·J·罗森塔尔编《宪政与权利》,郑戈等译,北京三联书店1996年版,第510页。
④参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第53页。
① Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.4, 2d ed.,1836,P.163.
② Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.3, 2d ed.,1836,P.150.
③帕特里克·亨利评论道：有人宣称,有些州在组织政府时遗漏了权利法案。对此,我的回答是,这些州的宪法中具备了权利法案的实质内容,这些实质内容与权利法案是一回事。我相信,康涅狄格就有一部这样的权利法案,因为它的宪法——它的庄严的宪章——对于人类的伟大的权利提供了清楚的界定和保障,使我们获得人类的伟大而重要的权利；我不在乎这种保障是以何种形式而提供的。See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.3,2d ed.,1836, P.317.
④ Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.3, 2d ed.,1836, P.442.
⑤ See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 3,2d ed.,1836,P.444.
⑥ Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.3, 2d ed.,1836, PP.659、661.
① See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 1,2d ed.,1836,P.327.
② Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.2, 2d ed.,1836,P.545.
③参见《联邦党人文集》第84篇的论述。
① See Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.454.
② See Gales and Seaton, ed.. The Debates and Proceedings in the Coneress of the United States, vol.1.1834 P.449 3,2d ed.,1836, P.627.
③ See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Consitution, vol.
① See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.274.
②张芳杰主编：《牛津现代高级英汉双解词典》,商务印书馆1988年版,第1054页。
③一位众议院议员宣称,在他的选民看来,修正案草案就像一撮鼻烟那样无足轻重；它们将对那些永远受不到威胁的权利提供保障。See Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States.vol.1,1834.P850.
④ See Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.440.
① See Ringold, The History of the Enactment of the Ninth Amendment and Its Recent Development,8 Tulsa L. J.4 (1972).关于这些修正案草案的数量,还有一种统计结果是该数字的两倍。See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.4,2d ed.,1836, PP.224,246. See also Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.1,2d ed.,1836,P.327.
①1215年《自由大宪章》第39条的原文是:No free man shall be seized, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or injured in any way, nor will we enter on him or send against him except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
② See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, PP.168—171.
① Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834 (proceedings of August 17,1789)
① See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, P.181.
① See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977,P.187.
① Houston v. Moore,18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1 (1820)
②参见[美]约瑟夫·斯托里：《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店2006年版,第562—563页。
①[美]约瑟夫·斯托里：《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店2006年版,第574页。
② See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597.604—605 (2005)
③ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,643 (2005)
① See Willis v. Jolliffee,32 S. C. Eq. (11 Rich. Eq.) 447 (1860)
② See Mitchell v. Wells,37 Miss.235 (1859).
③ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,647—649 (2005).
④ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,674 (F.n.348) (2005)
① See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,602 (2005)
② See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,701—703 (2005).
③ See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Bamett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.243 (n.5).另有学者认为,联邦最高法院曾经在10个案件中提及第九修正案,但这些案件都没有以第九修正案为基础作出判决。See Chase Sanders, Ninth Life:An Interpretive Theory of the Ninth Amendment,69 Ind. L. J.759,761 (1994).
④ Jackson, The Supreme Court in the American System of Government, Harvard University Press,1955, PP.74—75.
① 11 Ind. L, J.309 (1936)根据笔者的搜索,这是英语作品中第一篇专题研究第九修正案的论文。
② 37 N. Y. U. L. Rev.787 (1962)
③ Bennett. Patterson, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment, Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill,1955.
④ See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.244.
⑤ See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.243.
⑥ See Eugene M. Van Loan Ⅲ, Natural Rights and the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.150.
⑦ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,602 (2005)
⑧ See Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.482—486(1965).
① See Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.486-487 (1965) (Goldberg, J., Warren, C. J., Brennan, J., concurring).
② Griswold v.Connecticut,381 U.S.488 (1965).
③ Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.492 (1965).
④ See Eugene M. Van Loan Ⅲ, Natural Rights and the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.150.
⑤ Marbury v. Madison,5 U. S. (1 Cranch) 137,174 (1803).约翰·马歇尔的这一观点在其它一些案件中被引用或者得到引申,See Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.479,491(1965); Myers v. United States,272 U. S.52,151(1926); Knowlton v. Moore,178 U. S.41,87 (1900); Blake v. McClung,172 U. S.239,260—261(1898).
①“沃伦法院”指从1953—1969年厄尔·沃伦(Earl Warren)担任首席大法官的美国联邦最高法院。在这期间,联邦最高法院扩大了法律平等保护的范围,强化了对言论和新闻自由的保障,改变了在立法机关中不平等分配议席的做法,刑事案件中的被告人获得了更广泛的宪法保护,宪法意义上的隐私权概念得到确认。这些具有长远意义的事件重构了美国政治制度本身和美国社会的政治价值观。在美国宪法发展史上,沃伦的名字占有重要地位。参见[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨：《沃伦法院对正义的追求》“译者序”,信春鹰、张志铭译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
② Palmer v. Thompson,403 U.S.217,233—234(1973)(Douglas, J., dissenting). See also Doe v. Bolton,410 U.S.179, 210—211(1973)(Douglas, J., concurring); Roe v. Wade,410 U.S.113,152(1973)(Blackmun, J.); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S.665,714(1972)(Douglas, J., dissenting); Freeman v. Flake,405 U.S.1032,1032(1972)(Douglas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Stanley v. Illinois,405 U.S.645,651(1972)(White, J.); Olff v. East Side Union High School Dist.,404 U.S.1042,1044(1972)(Dougls, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); McGautha v. California,402 U.S.183, 255 n.4 (1971) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Osborn v. United States,385 U. S.323,341 (1966) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
③ See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.191 (n.2).
④ Richmond Newspaper, Inc. v. Virginia,448 U.S.555,579n.15 (1980) (Berger, C.J.).
⑤ Planned Parenthood v. Danforth,428 U. S.52,60 (1976).
⑥ Buckley v. Valeo,424 U. S.1,59 n.67,84 n.113 (1976) (Per curiam).
⑦ Lubin v Panish,415 U.S.709,721 n.(1974) (Douglas, J., concurring).
⑧这3个案件是:Planned Parenthood v. Casey,505 U.S.833,1000(1992)(Scalia, J., dissenting); Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S.186,201 (1986) (Blackmun, J., dissenting); Massachusetts v. Upton,466 U.S.727,737 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring); See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,191 (F. n.124) (1996).
①但是,安东宁·斯卡利亚(Antonin Scalia)大法官认为,第九修正案中的由人民保留的权利的确存在,但法官无权实施这些权利。See Troxel v. Granville,530 U. S.57,91—92 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
② See Western District of Pennsylvania in United States v. Cook,311 F. Supp.618,620 (W. D. Pa.1970).
③ See Anderson v. Laird,437 F.2d 912,914—915 (7th Cir.1971).
① See Adler v. Montefiore Hospital Ass'n,311 A.2d 634,642 (Pa.1973).
② See Sorentino v. Family & Children's Services,378 A.2d 18,20—21 (N. J.1977).
③ See Commonwealth v. Leis,243 N. E.2d 898,903—904 (Mass.1969).
④ See Concerned Citizens of Neb. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n,970 F.2d 421,426—427 (8th Cir.1992).
⑤ See United States v. Warin,530 F.2d 103,108 (6th Cir.1976).
⑥ See Baker v. Nelson,191 N. W.2d 185,186 (Minn.1971).
⑦ See Garlic v. Food and Drug Administration,783 F. Supp.4 (D. D. C.1992).
⑧ See O'Donnell through v. Village of Downers Grove,656 F. Supp.562 (N. D.Ⅲ.1987).
⑨ See National Ass'n of Property Owners v. U. S.,499 F. Supp.1223 (D. Minn.1980).
⑩ See Gasper v. Louisiana Stadium and Exposition Dist.,418 F. Supp.716 (E. D. La.1976).
11 See Gotkin v. Miller,379 F. Supp.859 (E. D.N. Y.1974).
① See Bright v. Nunn,448 F.2d 245 (6th Cir.1971).
② See United States v. Farrell,443 F.2d 355 (9th Cir.1971).
③ See Commonwealth & S. Corp. v. SEC,134 F.2d 747 (3d Cir.1943).
① Robert Heron Bork (born March 1,1927) is a conservative American legal scholar who advocates the judicial philosophy of originalism. Bork formerly served as Solicitor General, acting Attorney General, and judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In 1987, he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, but the Senate rejected his nomination.
② See Testimony of Robert Bork, as quoted in Wall St. J., Oct.5,1987,§A, at 22.
① See Randy E. Bamett, Getting Normative:The Role of Natural Rights in Constitutional Adjudication,12 Constitutional Commentary 93 (1995).
② See Troxel v. Granville,530 U. S.57,92 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
③ See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,410 (2007).
④ See Thomas B. McAffee, The Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment,90 Colum. L. Rev.1215,1219—1220 (1990); William O. Bertelsman, The Ninth Amendment and Due Process of Law—Toward a Viable Theory of Unenumerated Rights,37 U. Cin. L. Rev.777,787 (1968); Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,198 (1996).
⑤ See Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution:The Presumption of Liberty, Princeton University Press,2004, P.235; Andrew King, Comment, What the Supreme Court Isn't Saying About Federalism, the Ninth Amendment, and Medical Marijuana,59 Ark. L. Rev.755,759 (2006)
① See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence ofNonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,411 (2007).
② See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.290.
③ See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,181 (1996).
④ See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,204 (1996).
⑤ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,603 (2005).
①王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第6页。
①英国议会于1765年颁布的对北美殖民地征收直接税的法令,规定殖民地的法定文件、商业凭据等均需加贴印花税票。该法于1766年被迫废除。
②参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第38页。
③参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第39页。
①[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第5页。
② See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,57 (1992)
②[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第62页。
①参见[英]洛克：《政府论(下篇)》,叶启芳、瞿菊农译,商务印书馆1964年版,第48页,第77节。
②[英]洛克：《政府论(下篇)》,叶启芳、瞿菊农译,商务印书馆1964年版,第80页,第131节。
③参见[英]洛克：《政府论(下篇)》,叶启芳、瞿菊农译,商务印书馆1964年版,第133页,第221—222节。
④参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第77页。
⑤ See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the-Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.252.
⑥ James Otis, The rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (1764), in Bernard Bailyn, ed., Pamphlets of the American Revolution (1750—1776), vol.1, Harvard University Press,1965, P.425.
⑦ Scott Douglas Gerber, To Secure These Rights:The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation, New York University Press,1995, P.32.
①《弗吉尼亚权利法案》汉语译文,参见萧榕主编：《世界著名法典选编(宪法卷)》,中国民主法制出版社1997年版,第4页。
② See Scott Douglas Gerber, To Secure These Rights:The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation, New York University Press,1995, P.90.
① See John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第77、131、221、222等节。
②洛克认为,即使组成了政府,人们仍然保留了一部分不可转让的(inalienable,亦可译为不可分割的)权利,包括生命、自由和财产。按照洛克的本意,此处的“财产”概念不单指具体的物质,而是更倾向于指人本身拥有或习得的创造物质财富的权利。杰斐逊在《独立宣言》中将洛克式语言中的“财产权”更改为“追求幸福”,这一改动实际上更加准确地表达了洛克的原意。参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),
北京大学出版社2000年版,第25页注①。
③ See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,60—61 (1992).
① See Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum:The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (?)niyersity Press of Kansas 1985, P.54.
① See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,62—63 (1992).
① Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, PP.454—455.
②[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第46页。
③参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第75页。
④参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第82页；See also Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,58—59 (1992).
⑤参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第67页。
⑥参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第57—58页。
① 8 Co.118a (1610).转引自[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第43页。
② See Scott Douglas Gerber, To Secure These Rights:The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation, New York University Press,1995, PP.105—106.
③参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第80页；See also Scott Douglas Gerber, To Secure These Rights:The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation, New York University Press,1995, P.105.
④ Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic (1776—1787), University of North Carolina Press,1969, PP.454—455.
① See William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, vol.2, University of Chicago Press,1953, PP.944—945.
② See William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, University of Chicago Press, 1953, P.945.
③ See Charles G. Haines, The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, New York:Russell and Russell,2d ed.,1959, PP.91—92.
④ See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,66 (1992).
⑤ See William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, vol.2, University of Chicago Press,1953, PP.952—955.
① Charles G Haines, The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, New York:Russell and Russell,2d ed.,1959, P.96.
② See William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, vol.2, Universitv of Chicago Press,1953, PP.962—963.
③ See William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, vol.2, University of Chicago Press,1953, P.964.
④ See Charles G. Haines, The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, New York:Russell and Russell,2d ed.,1959, PP.105—106.
① See William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, vol.2, University of Chicago Press,1953, PP.966—968.
② See William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, vol.2, University of Chicago Press,1953, P.971; Charles G. Haines, The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, New York:Russell and Russell,2d ed.,1959, P.113.
③ See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,72 (1992).
④ See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,74 (1992).
① See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,72 (1992).
②洛克在《政府论(下篇)》中有‘'retain all the Liberty of the State of Nature"的句子。See John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第328页。
①有的州提出的修正案(草案)仅仅包括“修正案”,有的州提出的修正案(草案)仅仅包括“权利宣言(法案)”,有的州提出的修正案(草案)既包括“权利法案”,也包括“修正案”。
② See Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, Appendix A&B.
① Rossiter,1787:The Grand Convention 59 (1966). Excerpted from Eugene M. Van Loan Ⅲ, Natural Rights and the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.161.
① See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977. P.165.
② Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.3, 2d ed.,1836,P.445.
③ See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 3,2d ed.,1836, PP.445—446.
④ Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.3, 2d ed.,1836,P.446.
① See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 3,2d ed.,1836,P.448.
② See Letter from James Madison to George Washington(Dec.5,1789), in G Hunt, ed., The Writings of James Madison, vol.5,1904.P.431.
③ See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977. PP.173—174.179.
④ See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, P.180.
① See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,103—104(1992).
② Bennett. Patterson, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.107、108.
③ See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,51 (1992)
① Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,206 (2003).
① See Calvin R. Massey, Federalism and Fundamental Rights:the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.335.
② See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.25.
③ See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.192.
④ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,689—690 (2005)
⑤ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,701—703 (2005)
⑥ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,601 (2005).
① Bernard Schwartz 在 The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights (Oxford University Press,1977)一书中仅提到了罗杰·谢尔曼的名字,其他2位成员的名字不详。
① See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,395 (2007).
② See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,396 (2007).
① See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 12 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain).
②[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第V页。
①参见薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第964页。
②[日]木下太郎编：《九国宪法选介》,康树华译,群众出版社1981年版,第61页。
③陆润康：《美国联邦宪法论》“附录”,书海出版社2003年版,第386页。
④国民政府立法院编译处编译出版：《各国宪法汇编》,民国22年版,第16页。
⑤曹绍濂：《美国政治制度史》“附录”,甘肃人民出版社1982年版,第340页。
⑥商务印书馆编译所编译：《世界现行宪法》,商务印书馆民国2年版,第27页。
⑦参见[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》“附录”,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第467页。
⑧萧榕主编：《世界著名法典选编(宪法卷)》,中国民主法制出版社1997年版,第14页。
⑨[美]约瑟夫·斯托里：《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店2006年版,第574页。
⑩陈纪安：《美国法律》“附录1”,中国科学技术大学出版社2002年版,第234页。
11[美]汉密尔顿等：《美国宪法原理》“附录之六”,严欣淇译,中国法制出版社2005年版,第164页。
12张千帆：《西方宪政体系》(上册)“附录”,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第727页。
①[美]卡尔威因、帕尔德森：《美国宪法释义》“附录”,徐卫东、吴新平译,华夏出版社1989年版,第350页。
②纪念美国宪法颁布200周年委员会编：《美国公民与宪法》“附录”,劳娃、许旭译,清华大学出版社2006年版,第270页。
③参见中国人民大学法律系编：《中外宪法选编》,人民出版社1982年版,第229页。
④参见范仲英编著：《实用翻译教程》,外语教学与研究出版社1994年版,第33—34页。
⑤对于第九修正案的文本涵义,存在着两种不同的解读。一种解读认为,第九修正案试图表明,在联邦宪法特别列举的权利之外还存在着联邦宪法上的其它权利：另一种解读认为,第九修正案所保护的权利不是联邦权利,而是州权利,即未列举权利来源于州宪法、州制定法和普通法所包含的个人权利。前者的代表人物之一约翰·哈特·伊利(John Hart Ely)认为,如果把第九修正案解读为避免前8条修正案所列举的权利对未列举权利的否定或轻视,那就意味着,第九修正案企图表明,尽管有了“权利法案”,国会仍可 以创制更多的权利,或者表明州立法机关(或者普通法院)也可以这样做,或者表明各州也可以在自己的宪法中创制权利。通过历史文献我们可以确定,第九修正案并不是为确认国会有权创制额外的权利而设计出来的,也不是为了保护权利而被设计出来以便通过增设一种一般性的权力来修正宪法第1条第8款。“由人们保留的其它权利”并不是“国会可以创造的权利”的恰当说法。See John Hart Ely, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press, 1989, PP.183—184.后者的代表人物之— Russell L. Caplan认为,对于未列举权利,不得得出它们被宪法所废止或受宪法之不良影响的推论。See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.282.从以上两种解读来看,都不应把deny或者disparage未列举权利的主体看作是“列举权利”。①参见范仲英编著：《实用翻译教程》,外语教学与研究出版社1994年版,第37、38页。② See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, PP.169—170.
① See John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第324页。
② John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第330页。
③ John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第333页。
④ John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第352页。
⑤张芳杰主编：《牛津现代高级英汉双解词典》,商务印书馆1988年版,第969页。
⑤ John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第328页。
⑦[英]洛克：《政府论(下篇)》,叶启芳、瞿菊农译,商务印书馆1964年版,第57页。
⑧参见傅敬民等编著：《英汉翻译辨析》,中国对外翻译出版公司2005年版,第149页。
⑨参见吕俊等编著：《英汉翻译教程》,上海外语教育出版社2001年版,第183页。
①张芳杰主编：《牛津现代高级英汉双解词典》,商务印书馆1988年版,第247页。
②薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第305页。
③薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第399页。
④张芳杰主编：《牛津现代高级英汉双解词典》,商务印书馆1988年版,第336页。
⑤薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第422页。
①详细的论证参见本文第七章“未列举权利是集体权利还是个人权利”部分。
② See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.200; See also Dunbar, James Madison and the Ninth Amendment,42 Va. L. Rev.641 (1956)
③ See Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law, Collier Macmillan Co.,1990, P.184.
④ See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Bamett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.199—200.
⑤ See Testimony of Robert Bork, as quoted in Wall St. J., Oct.5,1987,§A, at 22.
⑥ See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 27 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain)
① See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,191 (2003).
② See David M. Burke, The "Presumption of Constitutionality" Doctrine and the Rehnquist Court:A Lethal Combination for Individual Liberty,18 Harv. J. L.& Pub. Pol'y 73,122 (1994).
③ See John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust, Harvard University Press,1980, P.38.
④ Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.94.
① Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.106.
② See Edward J. Erler, The Ninth Amendment and Contemporary Jurisprudence, in Eugene W. Hickok, Jr., ed., The Bill of Rights:Original Meaning and Current Understanding, The University Press of Virginia,1991, P.438.
① Letter from James Madison to George Washington (Dec.5,1789). Excerped from Bernard Schwartz, The Bill of Rights:A Documentary History, vol.2, Chelsea House Publishers,1971, P.1190.
② See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.192—193、216.
③ See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.19.
④ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.433.
⑤ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1.1834. P.440.
⑥ See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.199—200.
⑦ Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.95.
① Houston v. Moore,18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1 (1820)
② See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,621—622 (2005).
③ Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol.3, Fred B. Rothman & Co.,1991,§1898.
④ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,614 (2005).
⑤ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,642 (2005).
① See Randy E. Barnett, Reconceiving the Ninth Amendment,74 Cornell. L. Rev.1,5 (1988)
② Letter from James Madison to George Washington (Dec.5,1789). Excerpted from Bernard Schwartz, The Bill of Rights:A Documentary History, vol.2, Chelsea House Publishers,1971, P.1190.
③ See Randy E. Barnett, Reconceiving the Ninth Amendment,74 Cornell. L. Rev.1,4 (1988). See also Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, 83 Tex. L. Rev.331,394—401 (2004).
④ See Randy E. Barnett, Reconceiving the Ninth Amendment,74 Cornell. L. Rev.1,5 (1988)
① See Randy E. Barnett, Reconceiving the Ninth Amendment,74 Cornell. L. Rev.1,8 (1988)
② See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 12 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain).
③ See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 10 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain).
④ See U.. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 6 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain).
① See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 12 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain).
② See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 13—14 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain)
③ See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 10&14 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain)
④美国联邦宪法第6条第2款规定：“本宪法及依本宪法所制定之合众国法律,以及合众国已经缔结及将要缔结的一切条约,皆为全国之最高法律。”
⑤ See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 25 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain).
⑥薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第1200页。
⑦ Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co.,1999, P.1322.
① See Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law, Collier Macmillan,1990, PP.143-160.
② See Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law, Collier Macmillan,1990, P.184.
③ See Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law, Collier Macmiilan,1990, P.185.
① Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.749.
② Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, PP.449—450.
① See Thomas B. McAffee, The Bill of Rights, Social Contract Theory, and the Rights Retained by the People,16 S. ILL. U. L.J.267 (1992).
② Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in J.D. Andrews, ed., The Works of James Wilson, vol.2,1896, P.307.
① Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in J.D. Andrews, ed., The Works of James Wilson, vol.2,1896, P.335.
②[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第429页。
② Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.439.
③ See John Hart Ely, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.181—182.
① See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison s Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.14—17.
② See Randy E. Barnett, A Ninth Amendment for Today's Constitution,26 Val. U. L. Rev.419,426 (1991)
③ Letter from James Madison to George Washington (Dec.5,1789). Excerpted from Bernard Schwartz, The Bill of Rights:A Documentary History, vol.2, Chelsea House Publishers,1971, P.1190.
④ See Ogden v. Saunders,12 Wheat.213,6 L. ed.606; Knowlton v. Moore,178 U. S.41,44 L. ed.969; Holmes V Jennison,14 Pet.504,10 L. ed.579; Blake v. McClung,172 U.S.239,43 L. ed.432; Cohens v. Virginia,6 Wheat.264,5 L. ed.257; Myers v. U.S.,272 U.S.52,71 L. ed.160.
① See John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967,998 (1993).
② See Joseph-F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,400— 401 (2007).
③ See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,179 (2003)
④ See John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust, Harvard University Press,1980, PP.38—40.
① Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law, Collier Macmillan Co.,1990, P.265.
② See Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,12 (2006).
① See Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery 58—59 (rev. ed.,1860). Excerpted from Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,10 (2006)
② Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery 58—59 (rev. ed.,1860). Excerpted from Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,10 (2006)
③ Wendell Phillips, Review of Lysander Spooner's Essay on the Unconstitutionality of Slavery 10 (Boston, Andrews & Prentis,1847). Excerpted from Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,10 (2006).
④ See Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,9 (2006).
⑤ Calvin R. Massey, Federalism and Fundamental Rights:the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.332.
① See Kyle Alexander Casazza, Inkblot:How the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause Protect Unenumerated Constitutional Rights, S. Calif. L. Rev.1383,1423 (2007).
② See Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Foundation Press,1978, P.570.
③ See Kyle Alexander Casazza, Inkblot:How the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause Protect Unenumerated Constitutional Rights, S. Calif. L. Rev.1383,1409 (2007).
④ See John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967,971 (1993)
⑤ See Thomas K. Landry, Unenumerated Federal Rights:Avenues for Application against the States,44 Fla. L. Rev.219, 247 (1992).
⑥ See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.269.
① Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.479 (1965).
② Palmer v. Thompson,403 U.S.217,233—234 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting). See also Doe v. Bolton,410 U.S.179, 210-211 (1973) (Douglas,-J., concurring); Roe v. Wade,410 U.S.113,152 (1973) (Blackmun, J.); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S.665,714 (1972) (Douglas; J., dissenting); Freeman v. Flake,405 U.S.1032,1032 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Stanley v. Illinois,405 U.S.645,651 (1972) (White, J.); Olff v. East Side Union High School Dist.,404 U.S.1042,1044 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); McGautha v. California,402 U.S.183,255n.4 (1971) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Osborn v. United States,385 U. S.323,341 (1966) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
③ Richmond Newspaper, Inc. v. Virginia,448 U. S.555,579 (n.15) (1980) (Berger, C. J.).
④ Planned Parenthood v.Danforth,428 U.S.52,60 (1976).
⑤ Buckley v. Valeo,424 U. S.1,59n.67,84 n.,113 (1976) (Per curiam).
⑥ Lubin v. Panish,415 U.S.709,721 n.* (1974) (Douglas, J., concurring).
①参见[美]诺曼·维拉：《宪法公民权》(影印本),法律出版社1999年版,第12页。
②参见张千帆：《西方宪政体系》(上册),中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第287页。
③关于Griswold v. Connecticut案发生的社会背景的介绍,除明确注明出处者外,参见屠振宇： “从Griswold案看宪法隐私权的确立”,载《法制现代化研究》(第11卷),南京师范大学出版社2007年版,第398页；张卓明：“法官能否推定未列举权利?——格里斯沃尔德诉康涅狄格州案述评”,《云南大学学报法学版》2008年第2期,第1—2页；薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第154页"birth control"词条；Norman Redlich, Are There "Certain Rights---etained by the People", in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989.
④ State v. Nelson,126 Conn.412,11 A.2d 856 (1940).
① Tileston v. Ullman,318 U. S.44 (1943)
②参见[美]阿丽塔·L·艾伦、理查德·C·托克音顿：《美国隐私法：学说、判例和立法》,冯建妹等编译,中国民主法制出版社2004年版,第374—375页。
①关于这4种意见的叙述,参见[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1115—1125页。
① Marbury v.Madison,5 U.S. (1 Cranch)137,174(1803).
①参见[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1123—1125页。
② Mapp v. Ohio,367 U.S.643(1961).
③[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1117—1118页。
① Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.479,493—494 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring).
②[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程；案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1120页。
① See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment,66 Curnell L. Rev.1,9 (1980); See also Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law, Collier Macmillan Co.,1990, P.183.
② See J.D. Droddy, Originalist Justification and the Methodology of Unenumerated Rights,1999 L. Rev. Mich. St. U. Det. C.L.809,810—811 (1999); Suzanna Sherry, The Founders'Unwritten Constitution,54 U. Chi. L. Rev.1127, P1013 —1014(1987); Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Bait. L. Rev.169,171 (2003)
③ See Lawrence B. Solum, The Supreme Court in Bondage:Constitutional Stare Decisis, Legal Formalism, and the Future of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.155,204 (2006).
④ See Thomas Grey, Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution?,27 Stan. L. Rev.703,710—714(1975); Michael S. Moore, Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution?,63 S. Cal. L. Rev.107,115 (1989); Suzanna Sherry, The Founders'Unwritten Constitution,54 U. Chi. L. Rev.1127,1127 (1987)
① See Randy E. Barnett, Getting Normative:The Role of Natural Rights in Constitutional Adjudication,12 Constitutional Commentary 93 (1995).
② See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Bait. L. Rev.169,171 (2003).
③ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.454.
④ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, PP.454—455. Barnett认为,这段话对司法机关的遗漏暗示,在麦迪逊看来,司法机关威胁较小或者没有威胁。See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.21 (n.56).
① Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.457.
②[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第392—393页。
③参见薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》"Marbury v. Madison"词条,法律出版社2003年版,第892页。
④英国法官解释的是法律,美国联邦最高法院因该案而获得了解释宪法的权力。因此,笔者认为,马歇尔的贡献主要是理论方面的,而非制度方面的。
⑤[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第11页。
⑥参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第19—20页。
①参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第42—43页。
②[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第58页。
③ John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第358页§136。
④[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第392—393页。
⑤ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.457.
⑥罗伯特·麦克罗斯基说：“当宪法的制订者看到最高法院以某种形式——或是反对各州——或是反对国会时,将会大为诧异。的确,有丰富的证据显示,那些曾经想到过这一问题的大多数代表,是期望着最高法院会这样做,不过,颇为沮丧的是,他们没有能够清楚地表达出他们的期望。……总之,在1790年,既没有宪法的文字,也没有宪法制订者及其批准者的确切意图,能够令人信服地肯定最高法院监督各州和国会的权力范围及至上性。至多可以说,宪法的内容和他们的意图没有排除最高法院成为后来历史的强有力的仲裁者。”[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第5页。笔者认为,罗伯特·麦克罗斯基的说法显然忽视了汉密尔顿和麦迪逊作为重要的制宪者的态度。
①[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第37页。
②[美]约瑟夫·斯托里：《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店2006年版,第140—141页。
③参见[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第37页。
④ See Charles Black, On Reading and Using the Ninth Amendment, in M. McDougal & W. N. Reisman, ed., Power and Policy in Quest of Law:Essays in Honor of Eugene Victor Rostow,1985, P.188.
① Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy,4 Harv. L. Rev.193 (1890)
①参见[荷]亨利·范·马尔赛文、格尔·范·德·唐：《成文宪法的比较研究》,陈云生译,华夏出版社1987年版,第255页。
②第四修正案规定：人人具有保障人身、住所、文件及财物的安全,不受无理之搜索和拘捕的权利；此项权利,不得侵犯。
③夏泽祥：“‘深圳妓女示众事件’的宪法学分析”,《山东社会科学》2007年第11期,第34页。
①以上关于隐私权理论发展阶段的归纳及其评介,参见屠振宇：“论隐私权的宪法保护”,中国人民大学2006年博士学位论文,第32—42页。
② James Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Cambridge University Press,1967, P.160.
③[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第201页。
①[美]罗斯科·庞德：《通过法律的社会控制》,沈宗灵等译,商务印书馆1984年版,第55页。
②[美]约翰·哈特·伊利：《民主与不信任——关于司法审查的理论》,朱中一、顾运译,法律出版社2003年版,第42页。
③参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第14—15页。
④ See Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,960 (2006)
①参见范进学：《宪法解释的理论建构》,山东人民出版社2004年版,第257、262页。
②参见范进学：《宪法解释的理论建构》,山东人民出版社2004年版,第279—280页。
③[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第392页。
④[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第393页。
① Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press,1977, P.169.
②[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第391页。
③[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第11—12页。
④ Monroe, The Supreme Court and the Constitution,18 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev.737,740 (1924)
⑤[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第14页。
① See Scott Douglas Gerber, To Secure These Rights:The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation, New York University Press,1995, PP.129—132.
②参见[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨：《沃伦法院对正义的追求》,信春鹰、张志铭译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第199页。
① See Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.451.
① Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.432.
② Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.437.
③ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, PP.446—447.
④ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.746.
⑤ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.749.
⑥该条提案的原文是：That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:No State
shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
⑦ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.441.
⑧ Gales and Seaton, ed.. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1.1834. P.755.
⑨ See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.195.
① Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.216.
② See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.281 —282.
③ Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.283—284.
④ See Charles J. Cooper, Limited Government and Individual Liberty:The Ninth Amendment's Forgotten Lessons, in Eugene W. Hickok, Jr., ed., The Bill of Rights:Original Meaning and Current Understanding, Virginia University Press, 1991,P.427.
① Calder v. Bull,3 U. S.(3 Dall.) 386,387—388 (1798)
② See Bennett. Patterson, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People: the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.111、113—114.
① See Bennett Patterson, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People: the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.115—118.
② See Thomas K. Landry, Unenumerated Federal Rights:Avenues for Application against the States,44 Fla. L. Rev.219, 221 (1992).
①在1787年美国宪法批准之时,当时一种颇为流行的观点认为,联邦政府的管理是一种“外来的统治”(foreign rule),联邦政府会摧毁自由。See Albert Beveridge, Life of John Marshall, vol.1, Houghton Mifflin,1916, PP.342—347.
②这种对制宪者的赞美之词,参见克林顿·罗西特为《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》所写的“序言”,载[美]爱德华·S·考文《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第1I页。
③ See Bennett. Patterson, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People: the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.119.
④范进学：《宪法解释的理论建构》,山东人民出版社2004年版,第250页。
① Benjamin N·Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 83 (New Haven,1921).转引自[美]E·博登海默：《法理学：法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第521页。
②参见[美]E·博登海默：《法理学：法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第521页。
③ Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.281—282.
① See Simeon C. R. Mclntosh, On Reading the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Raoul Berger, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.219—220.
② Simeon C. R. Mclntosh, On Reading the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Raoul Berger, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.220.
① See Turner v. Safley,482.U. S.78 (1987); Loving v. Virginia,388 U. S.1 (1967).
② See Roe v. Wade,410 U.S.113 (1973); Planned Parenthood v. Casey,505 U. S.833 (1992).
③ See Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U. S.702 (1997).
④ See Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U. S.702 (1997)
⑤ See Lawrence v. Texas,539 U. S.558 (2003).
⑥参见屠振宇：“论隐私权的宪法保护”,中国人民大学2006年博士学位论文,第59页。
⑦参见[美]阿伦·艾德斯、克里斯托弗·N·梅：《宪法个人权利》(影印本),中信出版社2003年版,第70页。
⑧参见[美]诺曼·维拉：《宪法公民权》(影印本),法律出版社1999年版,第11—12页。
① Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.243.
② Calvin R. Massey, Federalism and Fundamental Rights:the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.291.
③ See Calvin R. Massey, Federalism and Fundamental Rights:the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.336.
④从严格意义上说,“正当法律程序条款”指第五修正案和第十四修正案第1款。但持第一种判断的学者们在论及未列举权利的来源时,有的指称第五修正案和第十四修正案,有的仅仅指称第十四修正案。
①参见薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第448页。
② See Wynehamer v. People 13 N. Y.378 (1856).
③参见薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第448页。与此相关的说法是,美国联邦最高法院Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Co. v. Minnesota,134 U. S.418 (1890)案的判决中,彻底实现了向“实
体性正当程序”的转变。参见屠振宇：“从Griswold案看宪法隐私权的确立”,载《法制现代化研究》(第11卷),
南京师范大学出版社2007年版,第403页注⑤。
④ Lochner v. New York,198 U. S.45 (1905).当时的纽约州劳动法规定,在饼干、面包或蛋糕店,任何职员不得被要求或允许每星期工作60小时以上,或每天工作10小时以上。面包店店主Lochner因允许他的工人每周工作60小时以上而被州政府罚款50美元。Lochner在州法院败诉后,上诉至联邦最高法院。联邦最高法院认为该法律侵犯了Lochner和他的雇工之间的契约自由,而契约自由被认为是第十四修正案第1款所保护的“自由”的一部分。显然,联邦最高法院对“正当法律程序”所作的解释是实质性的,这种解释理论被称为“实质性正当法律程序”理论,对应于“程序性正当法律程序”理论。
⑤据学者考证,最高法院大法官使用“实体性正当程序”一词始于1948年的Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma,334 U.S.62,90(1948)案。参见丁玮：《美国宪法上的正当法律程序——一个历史的视角》,黑龙江人民出版社2007年版,第147页。
①实体性正当法律程序是对联邦和州政府部门立法权的一项宪法限制,即“对行使政府权力做什么加以限制”,它“同法律的内容有关”,主要限制立法部门。[美]詹姆斯·M·伯恩斯等：《民治政府》,陆震纶等译,中国社会科学出版社1996年版,第211页。
②学术界的主流观点认为,在“权利法案”批准之时,州政府被视为公民权利的捍卫者,而联邦政府被视为“权利法案”的防范对象,所以,第九修正案是对联邦政府权力的限制。在Fox v. State of Ohio (12 L. Ed.213,5 How.410)案中,联邦最高法院认为：第九修正案所包含的禁止性规定并非是为州政府设置的界限,它们仅仅是对联邦权力的限制,以防止对各州的权利以及各州之公民的权利的干涉。针对这一判决,有学者提出了质疑：按照这种解释,第九修正案只能意味着——联邦政府不得否认或轻视未列举的人权,但否认或轻视未列举人权的权力由各州保留。所以,合理的解释是,第九修正案可以适用于州政府。See Bennett. Patterson, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.110—120.
①对三种原则的介绍,参见魏晓娜：“法理与论争：美国刑事正当程序的范围——兼论美国的正当程序方法论”,《比较法研究》2005年第1期,第102—107页。
②参见[美]阿伦·艾德斯、克里斯托弗·N·梅：《宪法个人权利》(影印本),中信出版社2003年版,第57页。
② West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish,300 U. S.379 (1937).在该案中,联邦最高法院推翻了此前有关“正当法律程序”条款的判决,维持了华盛顿州关于妇女最低工资立法的合宪性。联邦最高法院在判决中宣称：缔结契约之双方地位不平等,或为公共卫生而需要保障双方之一造时,政府应有权加以干涉。
②关于“实体性正当程序”原则被禁用的说明,参见屠振宇：“从Griswold案看宪法隐私权的确立”,载《法制现代化研究》(第11卷),南京师范大学出版社2007年版,第403—404页。
③[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1120页。
① Roe v. Wade,410 U. S.113 (1973).参见[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1157—1158、1161页。
② Roe v. Wade,410 U. S.113 (1973).参见[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1162页。
③ Planned Parenthood v. Casey,505 U.S.833 (1992).参见[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1184—1185页。
① See Bowers v. Hardwick,478 U. S.186,191 (1986)
② Lawrence v. Texas,539 U. S.558,578 (2003)
③ See Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Health Department,497 U S.261,279 (1990)
④ See Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U. S.702 (1997).
① See Palmer v. Thompson,403 U.S.217 (1971).
② See Doe v. Bolton,410 U. S.179 (1973)
③ See Lubin v. Parrish,415 U.S.709 (1974).
④ See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,448 U. S.555 (1980)
⑤ See Troxel v. Washington,503 U. S.57 (2000).
⑥ See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,185 (2003).
①参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第203页。
②参见[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1172页。
③参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第206页。
①参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第201页。
② See Lawrence E. Mitchell, The Ninth Amendment and the "Jurisprudence of Original Intent",74 Geo. L. J.1719,1727 (1986). See also Jason S. Marks, Beyond Penumbras and Emanations:Fundamental Rights, The Spirit of the Revolution and the Ninth Amendment,5 Seton Hall Const. L. J.435,482 (1995).
③ See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,190 (2003).
④ See Kyle Alexander Casazza, Inkblot:How the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause Protect Unenumerated Constitutional Rights, S. Calif. L. Rev.1383,1409,1423 (2007),
⑤ See Thomas K. Landry, Unenumerated Federal Rights:Avenues for Application against the States,44 Fla. L. Rev.219, 221 (1992)
①约翰·哈特·伊利用green pastel redness来比拟“实体性正当程序”这一概念本身的矛盾,有译者将这一短语译为“绿色的红色蜡笔”。参见[美]约翰·哈特·伊利：《民主与不信任——关于司法审查的理论》,朱中一顾运译,法律出版社2003年版,第17页。笔者认为,该短语译为“绿色的浅红”似较妥当。
② Richard A. Posner法官在Ellis v. Hamilton,669 F.2d 510,512 (7th Cir.1982)中的讨论意见。转引自丁玮：《美国宪法上的正当法律程序——一个历史的视角》,黑龙江人民出版社2007年版,第146页注2。
③ Charles Warren, The New Liberty Under the Fourteenth Amendment,39 Harv. L. Rev.431,440 (1926).转引自[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(上册),张千帆等译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第329页。
① Allgeyer v. Louisiana,165 U. S.578 (1897).
② Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S.390 (1923).
③参见丁玮：《美国宪法上的正当法律程序——一个历史的视角》,黑龙江人民出版社2007年版,第110—112页。
④[美]约翰·哈特·伊利：《民主与不信任——关于司法审查的理论》,朱中一、顾运译,法律出版社2003年版,第19页。
⑤[美]约翰·哈特·伊利：《民主与不信任——关于司法审查的理论》,朱中一、顾运译,法律出版社2003年版,第14页。
⑥ See Marc C. Niles, Ninth Amendment Adjudication:An Alternative to Substantive Due Process Analysis of Personal Autonomy Rights,48 UCLA L. Rev.85,91 (n.19) (2000).
① See Laurence H. Tribe, Contrasting Constitutional Visions:Of Real and Unreal Differences,22 Harv. C. R.-C. L. L.Rev.95,105 (1987).
② See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,188 (2003)
③ See Moore v. City of East Cleveland,431 U. S.494,502 (1977)
④参见丁玮：《美国宪法上的正当法律程序——一个历史的视角》,黑龙江人民出版社2007年版,第147页。
⑤转引自丁玮：《美国宪法上的正当法律程序——一个历史的视角》,黑龙江人民出版社2007年版,第146—147页。
⑥ See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,169 (2003).
① Bowers v. Hardwick,106 S. Ct.2851 (1986) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
② Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,106 S. Ct.2187 (1986) (Stevens, J., concurring).
③参见屠振宇：“论隐私权的宪法保护”,中国人民大学2006年博士学位论文,第32—41页。
④ Calvin R. Massey, Federalism and Fundamental Rights:the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.332.
① Mark Tushnet, Can You Watch Unenumerated Rights Drift? 9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.209,218 (2006).
② See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment,66 Cumell L. Rev.1,9 (1980); Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law 183 (Collier Macmillan Co.,1990); See also Calder v. Bull,3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386,399 (1798) (Iredell, J., concurring).
③ Mark Tushnet, Can You Watch Unenumerated Rights Drift? 9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.209,216 (2006).
① See Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.479,493 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring); Calvin R. Massey, Federalism and Fundamental Rights:the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989.
② See David N. Mayer, The Natural Rights Basis of the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Professor McAffee,16 S.Ⅲ. U. L. J.313,314 (1992)
③宪法第1条第8款第1项,第9款第4、5项。
④ See Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.94 —95.
① See Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights
Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.95 —96.
② Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.104.
③美国宪法修正案对选举权的保障,共有四个条款禁止联邦政府或州政府因下列原因而否定或剥夺公民的选举权：种族、肤色或以前曾服劳役(第十五修正案),性别(第十九修正案),未交税(第二十四修正案),年龄关系(第二十六修正案第1款)。但是,囿于时代的局限,Knowlton H.Kelsey没有提及第二十四、二十六修正案关于选举权的保障。
④美国宪法共有二十七条修正案。其中,第十八修正案已经被第二十一修正案废除。
⑤台湾学者李震山将未列举权利分为三类：(1)非真正之未列举权,意指某一权利自由的用语并未明白出现在宪法文本之中,但其内容可能已在宪法明示、明定或列举权利之保护范围或射程范围之内；(2)半真正之未列举权, 意指某项权利的名称未见诸宪法文本,但其内容至少已有部分在列举权利保障范围之内：(3)真正未列举权,意指某项权利未由宪法文本之明示或者列举,也无法由列举权推衍出来。参见李震山：《多元、宽容与人权保障——以宪法未列举权之保障为中心》,[台]元照出版公司2005年版,第18—20页。笔者认为,这种分类本身存在着逻辑上的矛盾,而三种分类相互之间也存在着逻辑上的矛盾,且这种分类是针对台湾地区宪法而言,故本文不采此种分类法。
① See Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.104.
② See Bennett. Patterson, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People: the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.125.
③ See Freeman v. Flake,404 U. S.1032 (1972)
④ See Williams v. Board of Educ.,388 F. Supp.93 (S. D. W. Va.1975)
⑤ See Burns v. Swenson,430 F.2d 771 (8th Cir.1970).
⑥ See United States v. Uhl,436 F.2d 773 (9th Cir.1970).
⑦ See United States v. Orito,413 U. S.139 (1973),
⑧ See Tanner v. Armco Steel Corp.,340 F. Supp.532 (S. D. Tex.1972).
① See Associated Press, Study:More Know 'Simpsons' Than Constitution, Mar.1,2006, http://www.foxnews. com/story/0,2933,186455,00.html.阅读日期：2010年3月15日。
② See Turner v. Safley,482 U. S.78,94—99 (1987); Loving v. Virginia,388 U. S.1,12 (1967).
③ See Pierce v. Society of Sisters,268 U. S.510,534—535 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S.390,399—401 (1923).
④ See Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson,316 U. S.535,535,541 (1942); See also Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U.S.702,720 (1997).
⑤ See Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S.479,481,484 (1965).
⑥ See Eisenstadt v. Baird,405 U. S.438,453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S.479,485 (1965)
⑦ See Rochin v. California,342 U. S.165,173 (1952).
⑧ See Roe v. Wade,410 U. S.113 (1973); Planned Parenthood v, Casey,505 U. S.833,857—858 (1992).
⑨ See Lawrence v. Texas,539 U. S.558 (2003).
⑩ See Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Health Department,497 U S.261 (1990); Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U. S.702 (1997).
11 See W. Murphy, J. Fleming & W. Harris, American Constitutional Interpretation, Foundation Press,1986, PP.1083— 1084.
① Letter from James Madison to George Washington (Dec.5,1789), in Bernard Schwartz, The Bill of Rights:A Documentary History, vol.2, Chelsea House Publishers,1971, P.1190.
② See John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967,972 (1993).
③ See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,90—91 (1992).
① See John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967,972 (1993)
② See John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967,984 (1993)
③ See John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967,986 (1993)
④ See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,395 (2007).
⑤ See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,89&n.223 (1992).
① See John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967,969 (1993); Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,645 (2005)
② See Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University. Press,1989, P.97.
③ See Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.98.
④ See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,199 (1996).
⑤ See Chase Sanders, Ninth Life:An Interpretive Theory of the Ninth Amendment,69 Ind. L. J.759,806—807 (1994).
⑥ See Samuel Pufendorf, Of the Law of Natural and Nations(Basil Kennett trans.,4th ed.,1729). Excerpted from Jeffrey D. Jackson, The Modalities of the Ninth Amendment:Ways of Thinking about Unenumerated Rights Inspired by Philip Bobbitt's Constitutional Fate,75 Miss. L.J.495,513 (2006)
① See Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,21 (2006)
② See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,203—204 (1996).
③ See Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,975 (2006)
④ See Sotirios A. Barber, Welfare and the Constitution 1 (2003). Excerpted from Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,976 (2006).
⑤ See Cass Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights:FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More than Ever 5 (2004). Excerpted from Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,976 (2006)
① See Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U. S.702,719—720 (1997).
② See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,389 (2007).
③ See Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,17 (2006).
④参见薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第589页。
④ See Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co.,1999, P.683.
⑥徐显明主编：《公民权利义务通论》,群众出版社1991年版,第133页。
① Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in J. D. Andrews, ed., The Works of James Wilson, vol.2,1896, P.308.
② See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison s Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.35—36.
① See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.37.
② See Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law, Collier Macmillan Co.,1990, PP.143 —144.
③ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.456.
④ See James Wilson and John Smilie Debate the Need for a Bill of Rights (Nov.28,1787), in Bernard Bailyn, ed., The Debate on the Constitution, Library of America,1993, PP.807—808.
⑤ See Samuel E. Morison, The Oxford History of the American People, Oxford University Press,1965, P.272; See also Ray A. Billington, American History before 1877, Littlefield & Adams Co.,1984, P.70.
⑥参见[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第8、29页；[美]查尔斯·比尔德、玛丽·比尔德：《美国文明的兴起》(第一卷),许亚芬译,商务印书馆1991年版,第111页：曹绍濂：《美国政治制度史》,甘肃人民出版社1982年版,第15—16页。
①参见[美]卡尔·贝克尔：“论(独立宣言>——政治思想史研究”,彭刚译,载《18世纪哲学家的天城》,北京三联书店2001年版,第252—253页。
② See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.243 (n.5).
③ See Chase Sanders, Ninth Life:An Interpretive Theory of the Ninth Amendment,69 Ind. L. J.759,761 (1994)
④ See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.44.
① See Simeon C. R. Mclntosh, On Reading the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Raoul Berger, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.236—237.
② Lawrence E. Mitchell, The Ninth Amendment and the "Jurisprudence of Original Intent",74 Geo. L. J.1719,1727 (1986).
③ See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,170 (2003)
④ See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,192—194 (2003).
① See Simeon C. R. Mclntosh, On Reading the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Raoul Berger, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.236.
② See Jeffrey D. Jackson, The Modalities of the Ninth Amendment:Ways of Thinking about Unenumerated Rights Inspired by Philip Bobbitt's Constitutional Fate,75 Miss. L. J.495,518 (2006)
③ See John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust, Harvard University Press,1980, PP.38—40.
④ See Simeon C. R. Mclntosh, On Reading the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Raoul Berger, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.235—236.
⑤ See Simeon C. R. Mclntosh, On Reading the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Raoul Berger, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press, 1989, PP.240—241.
⑥ See Marsh, Historical Interpretation and the History of Criticism, in P. Damon, ed., Literary Criticism and Historical Understanding, Columbia University Press,1967, P.4.
① See Akhil Reed Amar, Intratextualism,112 Harv. L. Rev.747 (1999)
② See Randy E E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.37.
③ See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.38.
① See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison s Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.38—39.
② See Michael W. McConnell, The Right to Die and the Jurisprudence of Tradition,1997 Utah L. Rev.665,682 (1997).
③ See Michael W. McConnell, Textualism and the Dead Hand of the Past,66 Geo. Wash. L. Rev.1127,1136 (1998).
① See Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.479,493—494 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring).
② Moore v. City of East Cleveland,431 U. S.494,503 (1977)
③ Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U. S.702,767 (1997).
④参见屠振宇：“未列举基本权利的认定方法”,《法学》2007年第9期,第79—80页。
①参见李震山：《多元、宽容与人权保障——以宪法未列举权之保障为中心》,[台]元照出版公司2005年版,第18—19页。
② See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.44.
③ See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.43.
①这一方法基于“人的尊严”这一理念,认为先于国家而存在的人应当是国家存在的目的,尊重和保护人的尊严是国家的义务。参见屠振宇：“未列举基本权利的认定方法”,《法学》2007年第9期,第80页。
① See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.40—41.
③ See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.42.
① See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.41.
② See Jeffrey D. Jackson, The Modalities of the Ninth Amendment:Ways of Thinking about Unenumerated Rights Inspired by Philip Bobbitt's Constitutional Fate,75 Miss. L. J.495,539 (2006)
③ See Simeon C. R. Mclntosh, On Reading the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Raoul Berger, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press, 1989, P.241.
④ Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U. S.702,767—768 (1997)
① See Jeffrey D. Jackson, The Modalities of the Ninth Amendment:Ways of Thinking about Unenumerated Rights Inspired by Philip Bobbitt's Constitutional Fate,75 Miss. L.J.495,533 (2006).
①关于该方法的描述,See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Bait. L. Rev.169,215—220 (2003).
① See Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.479,493—494 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring)
② See Philip Bobbitt, Constitutional Interpretation, Oxford, Basil Blackwell,1991, P.20.
③ Calvin R. Massey, Federalism and Fundamental Rights:the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.335.
④参见[美]约翰·哈特·伊利：《民主与不信任——关于司法审查的理论》“代译序”,朱中一、顾运译,法律 出版社2003年版,第1—2页。
①屠振宇：“未列举基本权利的认定方法”,《法学》2007年第9期,第82页。
②参见王广辉：“论宪法未列举权利”,《法商研究》2007年第5期,第64—65页。
③罗伯特·麦克洛斯基分析认为,联邦最高法院之所以备受尊敬,是因为它虽然体验到民众的期望,但却没有成为民意的俘虏；它受制于自己的传统而分担治国之责,但又使自己的职责不超过自己的能力所及。参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第16页。
①参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》“中译本序言”,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第5页。
① Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.26.
① Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,181 (1996).
②继Roe v. Wade案之后,联邦最高法院大法官在2000年的Troxel v. Granville案中再次提及第九修正案。在该案中,大法官Scalia在其反对意见中认为,父母对其子女的培养进行指导的权利是第九修正案中的“人民保留的权利”。See Troxel v. Granville,530 U. S.57,92 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
③在2005年、2006年的国会听证会上,无论是作为联邦最高法院大法官候选人的John Roberts、Samuel Alito,还是对两位候选人提问的参议员,都忽略了第九修正案。尽管如此,由于John Robe、Samuel Alito承认隐私权的存在,所以,尽管他们用“实体性正当程序”分析取代了第九修正案分析,但参议员们似乎对此是满意的。SeeJoseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,410 (2007). Sonia Maria Sotomayor作为联邦最高法院大法官候选人,于2009年5月获得奥巴马(Barack Obama)总统的提名,7月参议院司法委员会进行听证,8月6日得到参议院的批准。但是,关于Sonia Maria Sotomayor对第九修正案的看法,尚未发现有关资料。这或许也在某种程度上反映出,第九修正案在现阶段仍然不受重视。
① See Palmer v. Thompson,403 U.S.217,233—234 (1971) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
② See Lubin v. Panish,415 U. S.709,721 (1974) (Douglas, J., concurring)
③ See Troxel v. Granville,530 U. S.57,92 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting)
④ See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,199 (1996)
⑤这6个案件是:Planned Parenthood v. Casey,505 U.S.833,1000(1992)(Scalia, J., dissenting); Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S.186,201 (1986) (Blackmun, J., dissenting); Massachusetts v. Upton,466 U.S.727,737 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,448 U.S.555,579(n.15)(1980)(plurality); id., at 605(Rehnquist, J., dissenting); Planned Parenthood v. Danforth,428 U. S.52,60 (1976); Buckley v. Valeo,424 U. S.1,59 (n.67),84 (n.113) (1976) (Per curiam)
⑥大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚认为,第九修正案中的由人民保留的权利的确存在,但法官无权实施这些权利。SeeTroxel v. Granville,530 U.S.57,91—92 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting),
⑦ See United States v. Farrell,443 F.2d 355 (9th Cir.1971)
① See Bright v. Nunn,448 F.2d 245 (6th Cir.1971).
② See Gotkin v. Miller,379 F. Supp.859 (E. D. N. Y.1974).
③ See Gasper v. Louisiana Stadium and Exposition Dist.,418 F. Supp.716 (E. D. La.1976)
④ See National Ass'n of Property Owners v. U. S.,499 F. Supp.1223 (D. Minn.1980).
⑤ See O'Donnell through v. Village of Downers Grove,656 F. Supp.562 (N. D. Ⅲ.1987)
⑥ See Garlic v. Food and Drug Administration,783 F. Supp.4 (D. D. C.1992)
⑦ See Western District of Pennsylvania in United States v. Cook,311 F. Supp.618,620 (W. D. Pa.1970)
⑧ See Anderson v. Laird,437 F.2d 912,914—915 (7th Cir.1971).
⑨ See Adler v. Montefiore Hospital Ass'n,311 A.2d 634,642 (Pa.1973).
⑩ See Sorentino v. Family & Children's Services,378 A.2d 18,20—21 (N. J.1977).
11 See Commonwealth v. Leis,243 N. E.2d 898,903—904 (Mass.1969).
12 See Concerned Citizens of Neb. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n,970 F.2d 421,426—427 (8th Cir.1992)
① See United States v. Warin,530 F.2d 103,108 (6th Cir.1976).
② See Baker v. Nelson,191 N. W.2d 185,186 (Minn:1971)
③“未列举权利观”和“有限政府观”是“肯定说”和“否定说”的另一种称谓。“未列举权利观”即“肯定说”,承认第九修正案是未列举权利的来源：“有限政府观”即“否定说”,认为第九修正案并不包括任何权利；相反,它只是一个解释规则——联邦政府是一个权力有限的政府。
④ See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,181 (1996)
⑤ Adarand Constructors v. Pena,515 U. S.200 (1995).
⑥ Planned Parenthood v. Casey,505 U. S.833 (1992).
⑦ United States v. Lopez,514 U. S.549 (1995)
⑧ See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,201—203 (1996)
① Cameron S. Matheson 和 Russell L. Caplan 持这种观点。Carneron S. Matheson 的看法， See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,203 (1996). Russell L. Caplan认为：“恰恰是因为它本身的成功,第九修正案才变得湮没不闻。它的实际意义(actualsienificance)被想当然地认为是显而易见的,它在批准会议上发生的争论中的角色已被忘记,本条修正案独家实现了麦迪逊对‘权利法案’所抱有的一项热望。’'Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.290.
②参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》“中译本序言”,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第3页。
③笔者的这种推测是受了下列观点的影响：Laurence Tribe教授认为,第九修正案至少陈述了一个解释规则,按照这一规则,不应把那些受“权利法案”保障的利益并入第十四修正案；第九修正案为那些未列举的基本权利提供了法律源泉。See Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Foundation Press,1978, P.570. Kyle Alexander Casazza认为,第九修正案比第十四修正案的“实体性正当程序”能够为自然权利的保护提供更具有一致性和可预测性的文本依据；如果不并入第九修正案,那么,第十四修正案就不是未列举权利的来源。SeeKyle Alexander Casazza, Inkblot:How the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause Protect Unenumerated Constitutional Rights, S. Calif. L. Rev.1383,1409,1423 (2007)
①[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第164页。
②参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第279页。
③参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第276—277页。
④厄尔·沃伦(Earl Warren)在1953—1969年期间任首席大法官,对维护公民权利自由起了很大的推动作用；威廉·布伦南(William J. Brennan Jr.)在1956—1990年期间任联邦最高法院大法官。桑福德·列文森认为,自1956年布伦南任职联邦最高法院以后,在此后30年的时间内,他最终成为最高法院内部开明派联盟的中流砥柱,他的重要性远远超过了同一时期的两位首席大法官厄尔·沃伦和沃伦·伯格。自1958—1983年期间的最高法院贴上“布伦南法院”的标志也不为过。参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第175—176页。
⑤参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第187页。
① See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,191—198 (1996).
① See Cameron S.Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B.C.L.Rev.179,203—204(1996).
② See http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussupremecourt/tp/Chief-Justice-John-Roberts.htm.阅读日期：2009年9月20日。
③ See http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussupremecourt/tp/Justice-Samuel-Alito.htm.阅读日期：2009年9月20日。
④ See http://www.religioustolerance.org/scotuscon9.htm.阅读日期:2009年9月20日。
①参见杨晴川、王薇：“美国联邦最高法院首位拉美裔大法官产生”,新华网,阅读日期：2009年8月20日。
② See http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussupremecourt/tp/Justice-Samuel-Alito.htm..阅读日期：2009年9月20日。
③ See http://www.religioustolerance.org/scotuscon9.htm..阅读日期：2009年9月20日。
④ See http://www.religioustolerance.org/scotuscon9.htm.阅读日期：2009年9月20日。
① See Ken I.Kersch,Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U.Pa. J.Const.L.957,972(2006)
②当代关于司法审查的争论可以追溯到以1954年的Brown v.Board of education案为肇始的司法能动主义(judicial activism).以该案为开端,最高法院在厄尔·沃伦领导下,以宪法的名义处理了一系列有争议的社会问题。由于“沃伦法院”推翻了许多立法,沃伦以及“沃伦法院”在20世纪50、60年代遭受了许多的政治批评。在Roe案之前,司法能动主义(judicial activism)的批评者并未找到足够的理论依据来批评司法能动主义。Roe案的判决是依据第十四修正案做出的。但是,该案与第十四修正案的关联较之Brown v. Board of education案与第十四修正案的关联较远这一事实使批评者看到,司法能动主义抛弃了宪法条款背后的“原初意图”。Roe案的批评者们认为,在宪法解释中,法院应当把宪法语言和原初意图作为首要的指南,这种方法就是“解释主义"(interpretivism):在宪法语言和原初意图之外寻求某种文化价值,并在这种文化价值的指引下做出宪法裁判的方法,就是“非解释主义”(noninterpretivism).“解释主义”(interpretivism)与“非解释主义”(nonintrpretivism)是一对令人难以捉摸的概念,要表述这两种宪法解释方法的更为恰当的同义词应当是“原旨主义”(originalism)与“非原旨主义”(nonoriginalism)。在罗纳德·里根总统的任期内,“解释主义’'(interpretivism)与“非解释主义’'(noninterpretivism)的争论成了一个政治问题。当时的联邦总检察长Edwin Meese强烈反对司法能动主义,呼吁回到“原初意图的法理学”(jurisprudence of original intention)。1987年,罗纳德·里根总统提名持此类观点的Robert Bork接替在最高法院处于“决定票”(swing vote)地位的Lewis F. Powell,但遭到参议院的否决。此后,关于“解释主义”(interpretivism)与"非解释主义"(noninterpretivism)的争论仍在继续,而且这一争议的焦点日益明显,即:在宪政民主的框架之内,司法能动主义的适当限度是什么。尽管如此,但有趣的是,除了Robert Bork外,很少有法官介入这样的争论。即便有个别的法官介入了这样的争论,他们也不使用“解释主义”(interpretivism)与“非解释主义’'(noninterpretivism)这样的术语。自20世纪80年代以来,在最高法院内部保守主义政治倾向占了主流,多数大法官在司法审查中不是用“解释主义”(interpretivism)这个术语而是用“司法克制”(judicial restraint)这个术语来表述他们的司法哲学。See Robert W.Bennett,Interpretivism,http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/ eamc_03/eamc_03_01322.html#,阅读日期：2009年10月6日。
① See Troxel v. Granville,530 U. S.57,91—29 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
② See Sotirios A. Barber, Welfare and the Constitution 1 (2003). Excerpted from Ken I. Kersch. Evervthine Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,976 (2006).
③ See Cass Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights:FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Whv We Need it More than Ever 5 (2004). Excerpted from Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,976 (2006).
① Ken I. Kersch发现,在美国,有越来越多的作品认为,战后的国际秩序是一种新的、不同的政治体制,它本身就是一种宪法秩序。这些作品的作者们呼吁各个国家的官员们共同努力,实现国际人权公约规定的权利。See Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 957,977 (2006).
② See Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,974 (2006).
①参见[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨：《沃伦法院对正义的追求》,信春鹰、张志铭译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第90—91页。
①[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第161页。
①[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》(上卷),董果良译,商务印书馆2008年版,第52页。
②参见[美]E·博登海默：《法理学：法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第517页。
③参见[美]E·博登海默：《法理学：法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第521页。
①参见李震山：《多元、宽容与人权保障——以宪法未列举权之保障为中心》,[台]元照出版公司2005年版,第34—35页。
② See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,396 (2007).
③美国学者和实务部门对于该条款的字面涵义有着相同的理解。他们的分歧体现在该条款是否具有权利推定功能方面,“肯定说”认为可以从该条款中推导出未列举权利,“否定说”则由于担心司法自由裁量权的滥用而持反对意见。
④参见林来梵、季彦敏：“人权保障：作为原则的意义”,《法商研究》2005年第4期,第66页。
⑤参见焦洪昌：“‘国家尊重和保障人权’的宪法分析”,《中国法学》2004年第3期,第46—47页；韩大元：“宪法文本中‘人权条款’的规范分析”,《法学家》2004年第4期,第12页。
⑥参见焦洪昌：“‘国家尊重和保障人权’的宪法分析”,《中国法学》2004年第3期,第46—47页；韩大元：“宪法文本中‘人权条款’的规范分析”,《法学家》2004年第4期,第12页；林来梵、季彦敏：“人权保障：作为原则的意义”,《法商研究》2005年第4期,第65页。
⑦ See Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,21 (2006); Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,975 (2006).
①参见林来梵、季彦敏：“人权保障：作为原则的意义”,《法商研究》2005年第4期,第65页；吕世伦、张学超：“‘以人为本’与社会主义法治——一种法哲学上的阐释”,《法制与社会发展》2005年第1期,第95—96页。
② See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth.Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Riehts,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,395 (2007).
③参见钟丽娟：“自然权利制度化研究”,山东大学2008年博士学位论文,第28页。
④参见徐显明：“制度性人权研究”,武汉大学2000年博士学位论文,第42页。
①尽管我国传统文化中没有西方式的“自然法”、“自然权利”或“人权”术语,但人之作为人的要求和尊严是人之天性、民之本性。所以,我国传统文化中蕴涵着自然权利概念。要发掘具有中国本土特色的自然权利理论,具体路径是,把以民为本的民本论转变为民之所本的民本论,把他本的民本论转变为自本的民本论,把以民为手段的民本论转变为以民为目的的民本论。这种与以人为本观念相呼应的新的民本学说能够为当代中国的民权理论和政治实践提供理论支持。参见夏勇：“民本与民权——中国权利话语的历史基础”,《中国社会科学》2004年第5期。
②徐显明：“世界人权的发展与中国人权的进步——关于人权法律史的理论思考”,《中共中央党校学报》2008年第4期,第32页。
③从人权、法治、宪政角度来看,“以人为本”可以解读为“以人的权利为本”。参见徐显明：“以人为本与中国法治问题研究”,《学习与探索》2006年第6期,第84页；吕世伦、张学超：“‘以人为本’与社会主义法治——一种法哲学上的阐释”,《法制与社会发展》2005年第1期,第95页。
④童之伟：“保障基本权利是法治的首要价值”,《人民论坛》2006年第11期,第51页。
①参见王磊、韩姗姗：“违宪审查的机构之争”,载韩大元主编《共和国六十年法学论争实录(宪法卷)》,厦门大学出版社2009年版,第214—227页。
②关于明治维新的论述,参见魏晓阳：《制度突破与文化变迁——透视日本宪政的百年历程》,北京大学出版社2006年版。魏晓阳在该书中并没有明确提出“制度创新可以引领文化变迁”的观点,但其书名似乎意在说明,明治维新是一场没有充分文化准备的制度突变,正是这样的制度突变导致了日本文化的转型。
③[美]L.亨金：《权利的时代》,信春鹰、吴玉章、李林译,知识出版社1997年版,第115页。
①[美]罗斯科·庞德：《通过法律的社会控制》,沈宗灵等译,商务印书馆1984年版,第55页。
1.王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版。
2.杨海坤主编：《宪法基本权利新论》,北京大学出版社2004年版。
3.林来梵：《从宪法规范到规范宪法》,法律出版社2001年版。
4.韩大元主编：《共和国六十年法学论争实录(宪法卷)》,厦门大学出版社2009年版。
5.张千帆：《西方宪政体系》(上册),中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
6.范进学：《宪法解释的理论建构》,山东人民出版社2004年版。
7.李震山：《多元、宽容与人权保障——以宪法未列举权之保障为中心》,[台]元照出版公司2005年版。
8.徐显明：《公民权利义务通论》,群众出版社1991年版。
9.曹绍濂：《美国政治制度史》,甘肃人民出版社1982年版。
10.魏晓阳：《制度突破与文化变迁——透视日本宪政的百年历程》,北京大学出版社2006年版。
11.赵宝云：《西方五国宪法通论》,中国人民公安大学出版社1994年版。
12.李步云主编：《宪法比较研究》,法律出版社1998年版。
13.谢觉哉：《谢觉哉日记》,人民出版社1981年版。
14.吴耘：《美国法治面面观》,北京大学出版社2002年版。
15.陆润康：《美国联邦宪法论》,书海出版社2003年版。
16.陈纪安：《美国法律》,中国科学技术大学出版社2002年版。
17.丁玮：《美国宪法上的正当法律程序——一个历史的视角》,黑龙江人民出版社2007年版。
18.周天玮：《法治理想国：苏格拉底与孟子的虚拟对话》,商务印书馆2000年版。
19.[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上、下),尹宣译,辽宁教育出 版社2003年版。
20.[美]阿丽塔·L·艾伦、理查德-C-托克音顿：《美国隐私法：学说、判例和立法》,冯建妹等编译,中国民主法制出版社2004年版。
21.[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版。
22.[美]查尔斯·比尔德、玛丽·比尔德：《美国文明的兴起》(第一卷),许亚芬译,商务印书馆1991年版。
23.[美]查尔斯·比尔德：《美国宪法的经济观》,何希齐译,商务印书馆1984年版。
24.[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(上、下),张千帆等译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
25.[美]L.亨金：《权利的时代》,信春鹰、吴玉章、李林译,知识出版社1997年版。
26.[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版。
27.[法]孟德斯鸠：《论法的精神》(上、下),张雁深译,商务印书馆1961年版。
28.[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》(上、下),董国良译,商务印书馆1988年版。
29.[美]塞缪尔·埃利奥特·莫里斯等：《美利坚共和国的成长》(上卷),南开大学历史系美国史研究室译,天津人民出版社1980年版。
30.[美]路易斯·亨金、阿尔伯特·J·罗森塔尔编：《宪政与权利》,郑戈等译,北京三联书店1996年版。
31.[美]约瑟夫·斯托里：《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店2006年版。
32.[英]洛克：《政府论(下篇)》,叶启芳、瞿菊农译,商务印书馆1964年版。
33.[美]纪念美国宪法颁布200周年委员会编：《美国公民与宪法》,劳娃、许旭译,清华大学出版社2006年版。
34.[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1.996年版。
35.[美]汉密尔顿等：《美国宪法原理》,严欣淇译,中国法制出版社2005年版。
36.[美]卡尔威因、帕尔德森：《美国宪法释义》,徐卫东、吴新平译,华夏出 版社1989年版。
37.[美]马克斯·法仑德：《美国宪法的制定》,董成美译,中国人民大学出版社1987年版。
38.[美]赫伯特·J·斯托林：《反联邦党人赞成什么——宪法反对者的政治思想》,汪庆华译,北京大学出版社2006年版。
39.[美]詹姆斯·M.伯恩斯等：《民治政府》,陆震纶等译,中国社会科学出版社1996年版。
40.[美]约翰·哈特·伊利：《民主与不信任——关于司法审查的理论》,朱中一、顾运译,法律出版社2003年版。
41.[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版。
42.[荷]亨利·范·马尔赛文、格尔·范·德·唐著：《成文宪法的比较研究》,陈云生译,华夏出版社1987年版。
43.[美]罗斯科·庞德：《通过法律的社会控制》,沈宗灵等译,商务印书馆1984年版。
44.[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨：《沃伦法院对正义的追求》,信春鹰、张志铭译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
45.[美]E·博登海默：《法理学：法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
46.[美]卡尔·贝克尔：《18世纪哲学家的天城》,何兆武等译,北京三联书店2001年版。
47.[日]木下太郎编：《九国宪法选介》,康树华译,群众出版社1981年版。
1.林来梵、季彦敏：《人权保障：作为原则的意义》,《法商研究》2005年第4期。
2.韩大元：《宪法文本中“人权条款”的规范分析》,《法学家》2004年第4期。
3.童之伟：《保障基本权利是法治的首要价值》,《人民论坛》2006年第11期。
4.王广辉：《论宪法未列举权利》,《法商研究》2007年第5期。
5.王磊、韩姗姗：《违宪审查的机构之争》,载韩大元主编《共和国六十年法学 论争实录(宪法卷)》,厦门大学出版社2009年版。
6.焦洪昌：《“国家尊重和保障人权”的宪法分析》,《中国法学》2004年第3期。
7.屠振宇：《从Griswold案看宪法隐私权的确立》,《法制现代化研究》(第11卷),南京师范大学出版社2007年版。
8.屠振宇：《论隐私权的宪法保护》,中国人民大学2006年博士学位论文。
9.屠振宇：《未列举基本权利的认定方法》,《法学》2007年第9期。
10.张卓明：《法官能否推定未列举权利?——格里斯沃尔德诉康涅狄格州案述评》,《云南大学学报法学版》2008年第2期。
11.夏泽祥：《“深圳妓女示众事件”的宪法学分析》,《山东社会科学》2007年第11期。
12.秦强：《人权条款入宪之争》,载韩大元主编《共和国六十年法学论争实录(宪法卷)》,厦门大学出版社2009年版。
13.魏晓娜：《法理与论争：美国刑事正当程序的范围——兼论美国的正当程序方法论》,《比较法研究》2005年第1期。
14.杨晴川、王薇：《美国联邦最高法院首位拉美裔大法官产生》,新华网,阅读日期：2008年8月20日。
15.孙立平：《和谐社会重在机制建设》,《中国改革》2005年第4期。
16.夏勇：《民本与民权——中国权利话语的历史基础》,《中国社会科学》2004年第5期。
17.吕世伦、张学超：《“以人为本”与社会主义法治——一种法哲学上的阐释》,《法制与社会发展》2005年第1期。
18.任东来：《美国宪法的形成：一个历史的考察》,《社会科学论坛》2004年第12期。
19.褚乐平：《联邦党人与反联邦党人关于宪法批准问题的争论》,《史学月刊》2003年第7期。
20.褚乐平：《(美国宪法>批准史探》,《美国研究》2003年第1期。
21.李永清：《重评联邦主义者的政治思想》,《史学月刊》1994年第4期。
22.徐显明：《世界人权的发展与中国人权的进步——关于人权法律史的理论思考》,《中共中央党校学报》2008年第4期。
23.’徐显明：《以人为本与中国法治问题研究》“主持人语”,《学习与探索》2006 年第6期。
24.徐显明：《制度性人权研究》,武汉大学2000年博士学位论文。
25.钟丽娟：《自然权利制度化研究》,山东大学2008年博士学位论文。
26.秦强：《我国宪法人权条款研究》,中国人民大学2009年博士学位论文。
27.张薇薇：《宪法未列举权利研究》,武汉大学2008年博士学位论文。
1. Gales & Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (1834).
2. Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (2d ed.,1836).
3. Randy E-Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment (George Mason University Press,1989).
4. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Fred B. Rothman & Co.,1991)
5. Jackson, The Supreme Court in the American System of Government (Harvard University Press,1955)
6. Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law (Foundation Press,1978).
7. Albert Beveridge, Life of John Marshall (Houghton Mifflin,1916).
8. Gaillard Hunt, ed., The Writings of James Madison (1904).
9. Bernard Bailyn, ed., Pamphlets of the American Revolution 1750—1776 (Harvard University Press,1965).
10. George W·Garey, The Federalist:Design for a Constitutional Republic (University of Illinois Press,1989).
11. Bernard Schwartz, The Bill of Rights:A Documentary History (Chelsea House Publishers,1971).
12. Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:a history of the American bill of rights (Oxford University Press,1977).
13. J.D. Andrews, ed., The Works of James Wilson (1896).
14. John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust (Harvard University Press,1980).
15. Eugene W. Hickok, Jr., ed., The Bill of Rights:Original Meaning and Current Understanding (Virginia University Press,1991).
16. Ray A. Billington, American History before 1877 (Littlefield & Adams Co., 1984).
17. Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution:The Presumption of Liberty (Princeton University Press,2004).
18. Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law (Collier Macmillan Co.,1990).
19. Philip Bobbitt, Constitutional Interpretation (Oxford, Basil Blackwell,1991).
20. Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum:The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (University Press of Kansas,1985).
21. Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776—1787 (University of North Carolina Press,1969).
22. Charles G. Haines, The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy (New York: Russell and Russell,2d ed.1959).
23. William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States (Universitv of Chicago Press,1953).
24. Scott Douglas Gerber, To Secure These Rights:The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation (New York University Press,1995).
25. W. Murphy, J. Fleming & W. Harris, American Constitutional Interpretation (Foundation Press,1986).
26. James Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (Cambridge University Press,1967).
27. Samuel E. Morison, The Oxford History of the American People (Oxford University Press,1965).
28. James v. calvi, Susan Coleman, American Law and Legal System,高等教育出版社2002年影印版。
29. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本。
30.[美]诺曼·维拉：《宪法公民权》(影印本),法律出版社1999年版。
31.[美]阿伦·艾德斯、克里斯托弗-N·梅：《宪法个人权利》(影印本),中信出版社2003年版。
1. Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179 (December,1996).
2. Ringold, The History of the Enactment of the Ninth Amendment and Its Recent Development,8 Tulsa L. J.4 (1972).
3. U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause. (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain).
4. Randy E. Barnett, Getting Normative:The Role of Natural Rights in Constitutional Adjudication,12 Constitutional Commentary 93 (Spring,1995).
5. Randy E. Barnett, A Ninth Amendment for Today's Constitution,26 Val. U. L. Rev. 419 (1991).
6. Dunbar, James Madison and the Ninth Amendment,42 Va. L. Rev,641 (1956)
7. Randy E. Barnett, Reconceiving the Ninth Amendment,74 Cornell. L. Rev.1 (1988).
8. Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1 (October,2006).
9. Thomas K. Landry, Unenumerated Federal Rights:Avenues for Application against the States,44 Fla. L. Rev.219 (April,1992).
10. Norman Redlich,Are There Certain Rights Retained by the People?,37.N.Y. U. L. Rev.787 (1962).
11. Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387 (March,2007).
12. Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49 (1992).
13. Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment,69 Va. L. Rev.223 (1983).
14. Thomas Grey, Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution? 27 Stan. L. Rev.703 (1975).
15. J. D. Droddy, Originalist Justification and the Methodology of Unenumerated Rights,1999 L. Rev. Mich. St. U. Det. C.L.809 (Winter,1999).
16. Suzanna Sherry, The Founders'Unwritten Constitution,54 U. Chi. L. Rev.1127 (1987).
17. Chase Sanders, Ninth Life:An Interpretive Theory of the Ninth Amendment,69 Ind. L.J.759 (1994).
18. Thomas B. McAffee, The Bill of Rights, Social Contract Theory, and the Rights Retained by the People,16 S. ILL. U. L. J.267 (1992).
19. Michael S. Moore, Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution? 63 S. Cal. L. Rev.107 (1989).
20. Thomas B. McAffee, The Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment,90 Colum. L.Rev.1215 (1990).
21. William O. Bertelsman, The Ninth Amendment and Due Process of Law—Toward a Viable Theory of Unenumerated Rights,37 U. Cin. L. Rev.777 (1968).
22. Laurence H. Tribe, Contrasting Constitutional Visions:Of Real and Unreal Differences,22 Harv. C. R.-C. L. L.Rev.95 (1987).
23. Michael W. McConnell, The Right to Die and the Jurisprudence of Tradition, 1997 Utah L. Rev.665 (1997).
24. Monroe, The Supreme Court and the Constitution,18 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev.737 (1924).
25. Michael W. McConnell, Textualism and the Dead Hand of the Past,66 Geo. Wash. L.Rev.1127 (1998).
26. Marsh, Historical Interpretation and the History of Criticism, in Literary Criticism and Historical Understanding(Columbia University Press, P. Damon ed.,1967).
27. Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169 (Spring,2003).
28. Lawrence E. Mitchell, The Ninth Amendment and the "Jurisprudence of Original Intent",74 Geo. L. J.1719 (1986).
29. Jason S. Marks, Beyond Penumbras and Emanations:Fundamental Rights, the Spirit of the Revolution and the Ninth Amendment,5 Seton Hall Const. L. J.435 (1995).
30. Marc C. Niles, Ninth Amendment Adjudication:An Alternative to Substantive Due Process Analysis of Personal Autonomy Rights,48 UCLA L. Rev.85 (2000).
31. David M. Burke, The "Presumption of Constitutionality" Doctrine and the Rehnquist Court:A Lethal Combination for Individual Liberty,18 Harv. J. L.& Pub. Pol'y 73 (1994).
32. Akhil Reed Amar, Intratextualism,112 Harv. L. Rev.747 (1999).
33. Charles Black, On Reading and Using the Ninth Amendment, in Power and Policy in Quest of Law:Essays in Honor of Eugene Victor Rostow (M. McDougal & W. N. Reismaned.,1985).
34. Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy,4 Harv. L. Rev.193 (1890).
35. Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment,66 Colum. L. Rev.1(1994).
36. David N. Mayer, The Natural Rights Basis of the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Professor McAffee,16 S.Ⅲ. U. L. J.313 (1992).
37. John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967 (1993).
38. Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev. 597 (February,2005).
39. Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev. 331 (2004).
40. Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957 (September,2006).
41. Lawrence B. Solum, The Supreme Court in Bondage:Constitutional Stare Decisis, Legal Formalism, and the Future of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.155 (October,2006).
42. Mark Tushnet, Can You Watch Unenumerated Rights Drift?,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 209 (October,2006).
43. Andrew King, Comment, What the Supreme Court Isn't Saying About Federalism, the Ninth Amendment, and Medical Marijuana,59 Ark. L. Rev.755 (2006).
44. Jeffrey D. Jackson, The Modalities of the Ninth Amendment:Ways of Thinking about Unenumerated Rights Inspired by Philip Bobbitt's Constitutional Fate,75 Miss. L.J. 495 (Winter,2006).
45. Kyle Alexander Casazza, Inkblot:How the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause Protect Unenumerated Constitutional Rights, S. Calif. L. Rev.1383 (2007).
46. Robert W. Bennett, Interpretivism, http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/ eamc_03/eamc_03_01322.html#.阅读日期：2009年10月6日。
47. Associated Press,Study:More Know 'Simpsons' Than Constitution,Mar.1,2006, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186455,00.html.阅读日期：2010年3月15日。
1.薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版。
2.萧榕主编：《世界著名法典选编(宪法卷)》,中国民主法制出版社1997年版。
3.商务印书馆编译所编译：《世界现行宪法》,商务印书馆中华民国2年版。
4.国民政府立法院编译处编译出版：《各国宪法汇编》,中华民国22年版。
5.张芳杰主编：《牛津现代高级英汉双解词典》,商务印书馆1988年版。
6.范仲英编著：《实用翻译教程》,外语教学与研究出版社1994年版。
7.傅敬民等编著：《英汉翻译辨析》,中国对外翻译出版公司2005年版。
8.吕俊等编著：《英汉翻译教程》,上海外语教育出版社2001年版。
9.中国人民大学法律系编：《中外宪法选编》,人民出版社1982年版
10. Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary (West Publishing Co.,1999).
①参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第58页。
① George Washington to Jabez Bowen, Mount Vernon,29 January 1787. in Writings of George Washington, vol.29,PP.138—139.转引自王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第60—61页。
②华盛顿·欧文：《华盛顿传》,新华出版社1984年版。转引自李永清：“重评联邦主义者的政治思想”,《史学月刊》1994年第4期,第74页。
①参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第12—19页。
②关于这次修改《邦联条款》的会议是如何开成制宪会议的,有学者认为,会议的发起人汉密尔顿和麦迪逊也没有想到这次会议竟然成了后来的联邦制宪会议。参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第62页。尹宣认为,1787年制宪会议的发起者麦迪逊等人,名义上是要修改《邦联条款》,实际上是想用他们另外拟定的宪法来取代《邦联条款》。参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上)“译者例言”,尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第7页。笔者认为,尹宣的观点更为可取。
③关于制宪会议55名代表的知识背景和职业经历,参见[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第8、29页；[美]查尔斯·比尔德、玛丽·比尔德：《美国文明的兴起》(第一卷),许亚芬译,商务印书馆1991年版,第111页；曹绍濂：《美国政治制度史》,甘肃人民出版社1982年版,第15—16页。
①吴耘：《美国法治面面观》,北京大学出版社2002年版,第29页。
②[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》(上卷),董国良译,商务印书馆1988年版,第126页。
③周天玮：《法治理想国：苏格拉底与孟子的虚拟对话》,商务印书馆2000年版,第29页。
① See James v. calvi, Susan Coleman, American Law and Legal System,高等教育出版社2002年影印版,第140—153页。
②从总体上来看,“权利法案”前8条都是对“公民自由”的明文规定：正当程序则体现于第五、十四修正案。
③参见李步云主编：《宪法比较研究》,法律出版社1998年版,第622—623页。
①[法]孟德斯鸠：《论法的精神》(上册),张雁深译,商务印书馆1961年版,第154页。
①参见赵宝云：《西方五国宪法通论》,中国人民公安大学出版社1994年版,第75页。
②转引自任东来：“美国宪法的形成：一个历史的考察”,《社会科学论坛》2004年第12期,第30页。
③[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第29页。
① Virginia Declaration of Rights从英文字面来看可以直译为“弗吉尼亚权利宣言”,但流行的译文是“弗吉尼亚权利法案”。为方便读者,本文沿用流行的译法。
②[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》(上卷),董国良译,商务印书馆1988年版,第171页。
③汉密尔顿公开阐明,自由的崇高热情比政府的力量更加必然地导致专制道路。参见[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第5页。
④关于1787年美国宪法(草案)的制度创新的论述,参见[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第29—31页；.任东来：“美国宪法的形成：一个历史的考察”,《社会科学论坛》2004年第12期,第26页。
⑤[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第30页。
⑥参见[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》(上卷),董国良译,商务印书馆1988年版,第175页。
①[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》(上卷),董国良译,商务印书馆1988年版,第178页。
②参见[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第391—392页。
①关于1787年宪法(草案)的制约平衡机制的论述,参见任东来：“美国宪法的形成：一个历史的考察”,《社会科学论坛》2004年第12期,第24—25页。
②[法]孟德斯鸠：《论法的精神》(上册),张雁深译,商务印书馆1961年版,第154页。
③[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第29页。
④“联邦党人”的名称是在召开制宪会议前于纽约和东部各州兴起来的,意指那些反对优先考虑地方和具体利益,赞成支持合众国的人。参见[美]赫伯特·J·斯托林：《反联邦党人赞成什么——宪法反对者的政治思想》,汪庆华译,北京大学出版社2006年版,第14—15页。Federalist与Anti-federalist是一对反义词,前者的传统译法为“联邦党人”,后者的传统译法则为“反联邦党人”。 Federalist与Anti—federalist的对立奠定了美国两党政治的基础,但是,无论是“联邦党”还是“反联邦党”都不是正式的政治组织意义上的政党,而且“联邦党”在汉密尔顿去世前事实上即已经解体。为了与政治组织意义上的政党相区分,将Federalist译为“联邦主义者”、Anti—federalist译为“反联邦主义者”比较妥当。但为了避免制造生词,笔者在本文中沿用传统的译法。
①汉密尔顿并没有明确提出这样的观点,但这样的观点在其发言中是显而易见的。参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第142-148页。
②[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第5页。
③[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第5页。
④关于加强政府权力之必要性的论述,参见《联邦党人文集》第70篇,载[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第355—363页。
⑤[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》(上卷),董国良译,商务印书馆1988年版,第126页。
①参见威廉·皮尔斯：“对制宪会议代表的性格描述”,载[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(下)“附录五”,尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第840页。
①[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(下),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第774—776页。
②[美]马克斯·法仑德：《美国宪法的制定》,董成美译,中国人民大学出版社1987年版,第17页。
③这9个最早批准宪法(草案)的州的顺序是：①德拉瓦(1787年12月7日)、②宾夕法尼亚(1787年12月12日)、③新泽西(1787年12月18日)、④佐治亚(1788年1月2日)、⑤康涅狄格(1788年1月9日)、⑥马萨诸塞(1788年2月6日)、⑦马里兰(1788年4月28日)、⑧南卡罗来纳(1788年5月23日)、⑨新罕布什尔(1788年8月21日)。参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(下),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第887—888页。
①[美]查尔斯·比尔德：《美国宪法的经济观》,何希齐译,商务印书馆1984年版,第158—159页。
① See Albert. Beveridge, Life of John Marshall, vol.2, Houghton Mifflin,1916, P.379.
①该表有关数据,参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(下)“附表一”,尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第887—888页。
① See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 2,2d ed.,1836, PP.178—181.
② See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 3,2d ed.,1836, PP.587—596.
③ See Albert. Beveridge, Life of John Marshall, Houghton Mifflin, vol.1,1916, PP.307—309、324—325.
④参见[美]查尔斯·比尔德、玛丽·比尔德：《美国文明的兴起》(第一卷),许亚芬译,商务印书馆1991年版,第308页。
⑤参见[美]马克斯·法仑德：《美国宪法的制定》,董成美译,中国人民大学出版社1987年版,第13页。
①[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第96—97页。
②尹宣：“联邦制宪会议记录的解密和成书”,载[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第4页。
①[美]赫伯特·J·斯托林：《反联邦党人赞成什么——宪法反对者的政治思想》,汪庆华译,北京大学出版社2006年版,第3页。
②参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(下),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第743—744页。
③参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(下),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第770—771页。
④有历史学家认为,当乔治·梅森于9月15日提出制定“权利法案”这一问题时,制宪代表们已经疲惫不堪,需要回家了,故无耐心讨论这一论题。参见[美]塞缪尔·埃利奥特·莫里斯等：《美利坚共和国的成长》(上卷),南开大学历史系美国史研究室译,天津人民出版社1980年版,第331页。Calvin R. Massey认为,在本次制宪会议上,制宪代表们普遍担心的问题是各州蚕食中央政府权力而不是联邦权力取代州权力的问题,故他们对于联邦政府滥用权力的可能性不感兴趣。See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,81 (1992)笔者认为,Calvin R. Massey的观点更有道理。
① Letter to James Madison (Dec.20,1787),4 Writings of Jefferson 473,476—477. Exerpted from Eugene M. Van Loan III, Natural Rights and the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.154.
② Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.3. 2d ed.1836, P.462.
①[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第199页。
②[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(下),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第775页。
③[美]查尔斯·比尔德、玛丽·比尔德：《美国文明的兴起》(第一卷),许亚芬译,商务印书馆1991年版,第325页。
①[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第198页。
② George W·Garey, The Federalist:Design for a Constitutional Republic, University of Illinois Press,1989, P.107.
① J·R·Pole, ed., The American Constitution For and Against:the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers 10 (Hill and Wang,1987).转引自褚乐平：“《美国宪法》批准史探”,《美国研究》2003年第1期,第100—101页。
②[美]塞缪尔.埃利奥特·莫里斯等：《美利坚共和国的成长》(上卷),南开大学历史系美国史研究室译,天津人民出版社1980年版,第330页。
①对以上三个方面问题的归纳,参见褚乐平：“联邦党人与反联邦党人关于宪法批准问题的争论”,《史学月刊》2003年第7期。
②参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第100页。
①参见[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第426—434页。
② Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.2, 2d ed.1836,P.436.
③王希认为,宪法(草案)缺少专门的“权利法案”,是因为制宪代表们注重建立政府模式,忽略了“权利法案”。参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第100页。对于王希的观点,有学者提出了质疑,认为联邦党人未将“权利法案”写入宪法(草案)带有明确的目的,而非单纯的忽略。参见褚乐平：“联邦党人与反联邦党人关于宪法批准问题的争论”,《史学月刊》2003年第7期。
④[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上),尹宣译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第15页。
⑤参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第100页。
①日本虽然已经进入发达国家序列,但樋口阳—教授仍然从统治机构论的角度出发,主张日本有必要继续拘泥于西方近代的一些重要宪法原理。参见林来梵：《从宪法规范到规范宪法》,法律出版社2001年版,第27页。
② Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,1 vol.3, 2d ed.1836, P.317.
③参见[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第435页
④[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第357、362页。
①参见[美]约瑟夫·斯托里：《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店2006年,第561—564页。
②本部分中有关英属北美殖民地的建立及立法情况的史料,除注明出处者外,均参考了王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本)“第一章”、“第二章第一节”,北京大学出版社2000年版。
①[美]查尔斯·比尔德、玛丽·比尔德：《美国文明的兴起》(第一卷),许亚芬译,商务印书馆1991年版,第134页。
①一说《康涅狄格基本法》诞生于1639年。See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press,1977, P.28.
② See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, PP.28—29.
①[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第5页。
②这是王希教授的说法,参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000
年版,第48页。另有说法是,1776年6月29日通过的弗吉尼亚宪法是第一部正式的州宪法,参见[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美
国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第28页。
①关于1787年制宪会议之前各州宪法的制定时间,参见[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上),尹宣
译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版,第15页注[17]。
②[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第9页。
③ See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, P.27.
④ See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, PP.27—28.
⑤ See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977. P.33.
⑥ See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, PP.33、35.王希认为,1641年的《马萨诸塞自由法规》是英属北美殖民地最早的“权利法案”。参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第99页。
⑦ See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, P.35.
① See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977. P.1.
②参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第99—100页。
③[美]路易斯·亨金：《宪政与人权》,载路易斯·亨金、阿尔伯特·J·罗森塔尔编《宪政与权利》,郑戈等译,北京三联书店1996年版,第510页。
④参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第53页。
① Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.4, 2d ed.,1836,P.163.
② Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.3, 2d ed.,1836,P.150.
③帕特里克·亨利评论道：有人宣称,有些州在组织政府时遗漏了权利法案。对此,我的回答是,这些州的宪法中具备了权利法案的实质内容,这些实质内容与权利法案是一回事。我相信,康涅狄格就有一部这样的权利法案,因为它的宪法——它的庄严的宪章——对于人类的伟大的权利提供了清楚的界定和保障,使我们获得人类的伟大而重要的权利；我不在乎这种保障是以何种形式而提供的。See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.3,2d ed.,1836, P.317.
④ Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.3, 2d ed.,1836, P.442.
⑤ See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 3,2d ed.,1836,P.444.
⑥ Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.3, 2d ed.,1836, PP.659、661.
① See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 1,2d ed.,1836,P.327.
② Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.2, 2d ed.,1836,P.545.
③参见《联邦党人文集》第84篇的论述。
① See Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.454.
② See Gales and Seaton, ed.. The Debates and Proceedings in the Coneress of the United States, vol.1.1834 P.449 3,2d ed.,1836, P.627.
③ See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Consitution, vol.
① See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.274.
②张芳杰主编：《牛津现代高级英汉双解词典》,商务印书馆1988年版,第1054页。
③一位众议院议员宣称,在他的选民看来,修正案草案就像一撮鼻烟那样无足轻重；它们将对那些永远受不到威胁的权利提供保障。See Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States.vol.1,1834.P850.
④ See Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.440.
① See Ringold, The History of the Enactment of the Ninth Amendment and Its Recent Development,8 Tulsa L. J.4 (1972).关于这些修正案草案的数量,还有一种统计结果是该数字的两倍。See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.4,2d ed.,1836, PP.224,246. See also Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.1,2d ed.,1836,P.327.
①1215年《自由大宪章》第39条的原文是:No free man shall be seized, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or injured in any way, nor will we enter on him or send against him except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
② See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, PP.168—171.
① Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834 (proceedings of August 17,1789)
① See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, P.181.
① See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977,P.187.
① Houston v. Moore,18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1 (1820)
②参见[美]约瑟夫·斯托里：《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店2006年版,第562—563页。
①[美]约瑟夫·斯托里：《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店2006年版,第574页。
② See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597.604—605 (2005)
③ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,643 (2005)
① See Willis v. Jolliffee,32 S. C. Eq. (11 Rich. Eq.) 447 (1860)
② See Mitchell v. Wells,37 Miss.235 (1859).
③ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,647—649 (2005).
④ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,674 (F.n.348) (2005)
① See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,602 (2005)
② See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,701—703 (2005).
③ See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Bamett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.243 (n.5).另有学者认为,联邦最高法院曾经在10个案件中提及第九修正案,但这些案件都没有以第九修正案为基础作出判决。See Chase Sanders, Ninth Life:An Interpretive Theory of the Ninth Amendment,69 Ind. L. J.759,761 (1994).
④ Jackson, The Supreme Court in the American System of Government, Harvard University Press,1955, PP.74—75.
① 11 Ind. L, J.309 (1936)根据笔者的搜索,这是英语作品中第一篇专题研究第九修正案的论文。
② 37 N. Y. U. L. Rev.787 (1962)
③ Bennett. Patterson, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment, Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill,1955.
④ See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.244.
⑤ See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.243.
⑥ See Eugene M. Van Loan Ⅲ, Natural Rights and the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.150.
⑦ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,602 (2005)
⑧ See Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.482—486(1965).
① See Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.486-487 (1965) (Goldberg, J., Warren, C. J., Brennan, J., concurring).
② Griswold v.Connecticut,381 U.S.488 (1965).
③ Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.492 (1965).
④ See Eugene M. Van Loan Ⅲ, Natural Rights and the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.150.
⑤ Marbury v. Madison,5 U. S. (1 Cranch) 137,174 (1803).约翰·马歇尔的这一观点在其它一些案件中被引用或者得到引申,See Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.479,491(1965); Myers v. United States,272 U. S.52,151(1926); Knowlton v. Moore,178 U. S.41,87 (1900); Blake v. McClung,172 U. S.239,260—261(1898).
①“沃伦法院”指从1953—1969年厄尔·沃伦(Earl Warren)担任首席大法官的美国联邦最高法院。在这期间,联邦最高法院扩大了法律平等保护的范围,强化了对言论和新闻自由的保障,改变了在立法机关中不平等分配议席的做法,刑事案件中的被告人获得了更广泛的宪法保护,宪法意义上的隐私权概念得到确认。这些具有长远意义的事件重构了美国政治制度本身和美国社会的政治价值观。在美国宪法发展史上,沃伦的名字占有重要地位。参见[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨：《沃伦法院对正义的追求》“译者序”,信春鹰、张志铭译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
② Palmer v. Thompson,403 U.S.217,233—234(1973)(Douglas, J., dissenting). See also Doe v. Bolton,410 U.S.179, 210—211(1973)(Douglas, J., concurring); Roe v. Wade,410 U.S.113,152(1973)(Blackmun, J.); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S.665,714(1972)(Douglas, J., dissenting); Freeman v. Flake,405 U.S.1032,1032(1972)(Douglas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Stanley v. Illinois,405 U.S.645,651(1972)(White, J.); Olff v. East Side Union High School Dist.,404 U.S.1042,1044(1972)(Dougls, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); McGautha v. California,402 U.S.183, 255 n.4 (1971) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Osborn v. United States,385 U. S.323,341 (1966) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
③ See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.191 (n.2).
④ Richmond Newspaper, Inc. v. Virginia,448 U.S.555,579n.15 (1980) (Berger, C.J.).
⑤ Planned Parenthood v. Danforth,428 U. S.52,60 (1976).
⑥ Buckley v. Valeo,424 U. S.1,59 n.67,84 n.113 (1976) (Per curiam).
⑦ Lubin v Panish,415 U.S.709,721 n.(1974) (Douglas, J., concurring).
⑧这3个案件是:Planned Parenthood v. Casey,505 U.S.833,1000(1992)(Scalia, J., dissenting); Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S.186,201 (1986) (Blackmun, J., dissenting); Massachusetts v. Upton,466 U.S.727,737 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring); See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,191 (F. n.124) (1996).
①但是,安东宁·斯卡利亚(Antonin Scalia)大法官认为,第九修正案中的由人民保留的权利的确存在,但法官无权实施这些权利。See Troxel v. Granville,530 U. S.57,91—92 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
② See Western District of Pennsylvania in United States v. Cook,311 F. Supp.618,620 (W. D. Pa.1970).
③ See Anderson v. Laird,437 F.2d 912,914—915 (7th Cir.1971).
① See Adler v. Montefiore Hospital Ass'n,311 A.2d 634,642 (Pa.1973).
② See Sorentino v. Family & Children's Services,378 A.2d 18,20—21 (N. J.1977).
③ See Commonwealth v. Leis,243 N. E.2d 898,903—904 (Mass.1969).
④ See Concerned Citizens of Neb. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n,970 F.2d 421,426—427 (8th Cir.1992).
⑤ See United States v. Warin,530 F.2d 103,108 (6th Cir.1976).
⑥ See Baker v. Nelson,191 N. W.2d 185,186 (Minn.1971).
⑦ See Garlic v. Food and Drug Administration,783 F. Supp.4 (D. D. C.1992).
⑧ See O'Donnell through v. Village of Downers Grove,656 F. Supp.562 (N. D.Ⅲ.1987).
⑨ See National Ass'n of Property Owners v. U. S.,499 F. Supp.1223 (D. Minn.1980).
⑩ See Gasper v. Louisiana Stadium and Exposition Dist.,418 F. Supp.716 (E. D. La.1976).
11 See Gotkin v. Miller,379 F. Supp.859 (E. D.N. Y.1974).
① See Bright v. Nunn,448 F.2d 245 (6th Cir.1971).
② See United States v. Farrell,443 F.2d 355 (9th Cir.1971).
③ See Commonwealth & S. Corp. v. SEC,134 F.2d 747 (3d Cir.1943).
① Robert Heron Bork (born March 1,1927) is a conservative American legal scholar who advocates the judicial philosophy of originalism. Bork formerly served as Solicitor General, acting Attorney General, and judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In 1987, he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, but the Senate rejected his nomination.
② See Testimony of Robert Bork, as quoted in Wall St. J., Oct.5,1987,§A, at 22.
① See Randy E. Bamett, Getting Normative:The Role of Natural Rights in Constitutional Adjudication,12 Constitutional Commentary 93 (1995).
② See Troxel v. Granville,530 U. S.57,92 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
③ See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,410 (2007).
④ See Thomas B. McAffee, The Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment,90 Colum. L. Rev.1215,1219—1220 (1990); William O. Bertelsman, The Ninth Amendment and Due Process of Law—Toward a Viable Theory of Unenumerated Rights,37 U. Cin. L. Rev.777,787 (1968); Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,198 (1996).
⑤ See Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution:The Presumption of Liberty, Princeton University Press,2004, P.235; Andrew King, Comment, What the Supreme Court Isn't Saying About Federalism, the Ninth Amendment, and Medical Marijuana,59 Ark. L. Rev.755,759 (2006)
① See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence ofNonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,411 (2007).
② See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.290.
③ See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,181 (1996).
④ See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,204 (1996).
⑤ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,603 (2005).
①王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第6页。
①英国议会于1765年颁布的对北美殖民地征收直接税的法令,规定殖民地的法定文件、商业凭据等均需加贴印花税票。该法于1766年被迫废除。
②参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第38页。
③参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版,第39页。
①[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第5页。
② See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,57 (1992)
②[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第62页。
①参见[英]洛克：《政府论(下篇)》,叶启芳、瞿菊农译,商务印书馆1964年版,第48页,第77节。
②[英]洛克：《政府论(下篇)》,叶启芳、瞿菊农译,商务印书馆1964年版,第80页,第131节。
③参见[英]洛克：《政府论(下篇)》,叶启芳、瞿菊农译,商务印书馆1964年版,第133页,第221—222节。
④参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第77页。
⑤ See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the-Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.252.
⑥ James Otis, The rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (1764), in Bernard Bailyn, ed., Pamphlets of the American Revolution (1750—1776), vol.1, Harvard University Press,1965, P.425.
⑦ Scott Douglas Gerber, To Secure These Rights:The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation, New York University Press,1995, P.32.
①《弗吉尼亚权利法案》汉语译文,参见萧榕主编：《世界著名法典选编(宪法卷)》,中国民主法制出版社1997年版,第4页。
② See Scott Douglas Gerber, To Secure These Rights:The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation, New York University Press,1995, P.90.
① See John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第77、131、221、222等节。
②洛克认为,即使组成了政府,人们仍然保留了一部分不可转让的(inalienable,亦可译为不可分割的)权利,包括生命、自由和财产。按照洛克的本意,此处的“财产”概念不单指具体的物质,而是更倾向于指人本身拥有或习得的创造物质财富的权利。杰斐逊在《独立宣言》中将洛克式语言中的“财产权”更改为“追求幸福”,这一改动实际上更加准确地表达了洛克的原意。参见王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),
北京大学出版社2000年版,第25页注①。
③ See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,60—61 (1992).
① See Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum:The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (?)niyersity Press of Kansas 1985, P.54.
① See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,62—63 (1992).
① Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, PP.454—455.
②[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第46页。
③参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第75页。
④参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第82页；See also Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,58—59 (1992).
⑤参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第67页。
⑥参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第57—58页。
① 8 Co.118a (1610).转引自[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第43页。
② See Scott Douglas Gerber, To Secure These Rights:The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation, New York University Press,1995, PP.105—106.
③参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第80页；See also Scott Douglas Gerber, To Secure These Rights:The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation, New York University Press,1995, P.105.
④ Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic (1776—1787), University of North Carolina Press,1969, PP.454—455.
① See William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, vol.2, University of Chicago Press,1953, PP.944—945.
② See William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, University of Chicago Press, 1953, P.945.
③ See Charles G. Haines, The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, New York:Russell and Russell,2d ed.,1959, PP.91—92.
④ See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,66 (1992).
⑤ See William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, vol.2, University of Chicago Press,1953, PP.952—955.
① Charles G Haines, The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, New York:Russell and Russell,2d ed.,1959, P.96.
② See William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, vol.2, Universitv of Chicago Press,1953, PP.962—963.
③ See William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, vol.2, University of Chicago Press,1953, P.964.
④ See Charles G. Haines, The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, New York:Russell and Russell,2d ed.,1959, PP.105—106.
① See William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, vol.2, University of Chicago Press,1953, PP.966—968.
② See William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, vol.2, University of Chicago Press,1953, P.971; Charles G. Haines, The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, New York:Russell and Russell,2d ed.,1959, P.113.
③ See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,72 (1992).
④ See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,74 (1992).
① See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,72 (1992).
②洛克在《政府论(下篇)》中有‘'retain all the Liberty of the State of Nature"的句子。See John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第328页。
①有的州提出的修正案(草案)仅仅包括“修正案”,有的州提出的修正案(草案)仅仅包括“权利宣言(法案)”,有的州提出的修正案(草案)既包括“权利法案”,也包括“修正案”。
② See Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, Appendix A&B.
① Rossiter,1787:The Grand Convention 59 (1966). Excerpted from Eugene M. Van Loan Ⅲ, Natural Rights and the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.161.
① See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977. P.165.
② Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.3, 2d ed.,1836,P.445.
③ See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 3,2d ed.,1836, PP.445—446.
④ Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol.3, 2d ed.,1836,P.446.
① See Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 3,2d ed.,1836,P.448.
② See Letter from James Madison to George Washington(Dec.5,1789), in G Hunt, ed., The Writings of James Madison, vol.5,1904.P.431.
③ See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977. PP.173—174.179.
④ See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, P.180.
① See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,103—104(1992).
② Bennett. Patterson, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.107、108.
③ See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,51 (1992)
① Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,206 (2003).
① See Calvin R. Massey, Federalism and Fundamental Rights:the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.335.
② See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.25.
③ See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.192.
④ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,689—690 (2005)
⑤ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,701—703 (2005)
⑥ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,601 (2005).
① Bernard Schwartz 在 The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights (Oxford University Press,1977)一书中仅提到了罗杰·谢尔曼的名字,其他2位成员的名字不详。
① See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,395 (2007).
② See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,396 (2007).
① See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 12 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain).
②[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第V页。
①参见薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第964页。
②[日]木下太郎编：《九国宪法选介》,康树华译,群众出版社1981年版,第61页。
③陆润康：《美国联邦宪法论》“附录”,书海出版社2003年版,第386页。
④国民政府立法院编译处编译出版：《各国宪法汇编》,民国22年版,第16页。
⑤曹绍濂：《美国政治制度史》“附录”,甘肃人民出版社1982年版,第340页。
⑥商务印书馆编译所编译：《世界现行宪法》,商务印书馆民国2年版,第27页。
⑦参见[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》“附录”,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第467页。
⑧萧榕主编：《世界著名法典选编(宪法卷)》,中国民主法制出版社1997年版,第14页。
⑨[美]约瑟夫·斯托里：《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店2006年版,第574页。
⑩陈纪安：《美国法律》“附录1”,中国科学技术大学出版社2002年版,第234页。
11[美]汉密尔顿等：《美国宪法原理》“附录之六”,严欣淇译,中国法制出版社2005年版,第164页。
12张千帆：《西方宪政体系》(上册)“附录”,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第727页。
①[美]卡尔威因、帕尔德森：《美国宪法释义》“附录”,徐卫东、吴新平译,华夏出版社1989年版,第350页。
②纪念美国宪法颁布200周年委员会编：《美国公民与宪法》“附录”,劳娃、许旭译,清华大学出版社2006年版,第270页。
③参见中国人民大学法律系编：《中外宪法选编》,人民出版社1982年版,第229页。
④参见范仲英编著：《实用翻译教程》,外语教学与研究出版社1994年版,第33—34页。
⑤对于第九修正案的文本涵义,存在着两种不同的解读。一种解读认为,第九修正案试图表明,在联邦宪法特别列举的权利之外还存在着联邦宪法上的其它权利：另一种解读认为,第九修正案所保护的权利不是联邦权利,而是州权利,即未列举权利来源于州宪法、州制定法和普通法所包含的个人权利。前者的代表人物之一约翰·哈特·伊利(John Hart Ely)认为,如果把第九修正案解读为避免前8条修正案所列举的权利对未列举权利的否定或轻视,那就意味着,第九修正案企图表明,尽管有了“权利法案”,国会仍可 以创制更多的权利,或者表明州立法机关(或者普通法院)也可以这样做,或者表明各州也可以在自己的宪法中创制权利。通过历史文献我们可以确定,第九修正案并不是为确认国会有权创制额外的权利而设计出来的,也不是为了保护权利而被设计出来以便通过增设一种一般性的权力来修正宪法第1条第8款。“由人们保留的其它权利”并不是“国会可以创造的权利”的恰当说法。See John Hart Ely, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press, 1989, PP.183—184.后者的代表人物之— Russell L. Caplan认为,对于未列举权利,不得得出它们被宪法所废止或受宪法之不良影响的推论。See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.282.从以上两种解读来看,都不应把deny或者disparage未列举权利的主体看作是“列举权利”。①参见范仲英编著：《实用翻译教程》,外语教学与研究出版社1994年版,第37、38页。② See Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press, 1977, PP.169—170.
① See John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第324页。
② John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第330页。
③ John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第333页。
④ John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第352页。
⑤张芳杰主编：《牛津现代高级英汉双解词典》,商务印书馆1988年版,第969页。
⑤ John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第328页。
⑦[英]洛克：《政府论(下篇)》,叶启芳、瞿菊农译,商务印书馆1964年版,第57页。
⑧参见傅敬民等编著：《英汉翻译辨析》,中国对外翻译出版公司2005年版,第149页。
⑨参见吕俊等编著：《英汉翻译教程》,上海外语教育出版社2001年版,第183页。
①张芳杰主编：《牛津现代高级英汉双解词典》,商务印书馆1988年版,第247页。
②薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第305页。
③薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第399页。
④张芳杰主编：《牛津现代高级英汉双解词典》,商务印书馆1988年版,第336页。
⑤薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第422页。
①详细的论证参见本文第七章“未列举权利是集体权利还是个人权利”部分。
② See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.200; See also Dunbar, James Madison and the Ninth Amendment,42 Va. L. Rev.641 (1956)
③ See Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law, Collier Macmillan Co.,1990, P.184.
④ See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Bamett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.199—200.
⑤ See Testimony of Robert Bork, as quoted in Wall St. J., Oct.5,1987,§A, at 22.
⑥ See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 27 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain)
① See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,191 (2003).
② See David M. Burke, The "Presumption of Constitutionality" Doctrine and the Rehnquist Court:A Lethal Combination for Individual Liberty,18 Harv. J. L.& Pub. Pol'y 73,122 (1994).
③ See John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust, Harvard University Press,1980, P.38.
④ Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.94.
① Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.106.
② See Edward J. Erler, The Ninth Amendment and Contemporary Jurisprudence, in Eugene W. Hickok, Jr., ed., The Bill of Rights:Original Meaning and Current Understanding, The University Press of Virginia,1991, P.438.
① Letter from James Madison to George Washington (Dec.5,1789). Excerped from Bernard Schwartz, The Bill of Rights:A Documentary History, vol.2, Chelsea House Publishers,1971, P.1190.
② See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.192—193、216.
③ See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.19.
④ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.433.
⑤ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1.1834. P.440.
⑥ See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.199—200.
⑦ Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.95.
① Houston v. Moore,18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1 (1820)
② See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,621—622 (2005).
③ Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol.3, Fred B. Rothman & Co.,1991,§1898.
④ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,614 (2005).
⑤ See Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,642 (2005).
① See Randy E. Barnett, Reconceiving the Ninth Amendment,74 Cornell. L. Rev.1,5 (1988)
② Letter from James Madison to George Washington (Dec.5,1789). Excerpted from Bernard Schwartz, The Bill of Rights:A Documentary History, vol.2, Chelsea House Publishers,1971, P.1190.
③ See Randy E. Barnett, Reconceiving the Ninth Amendment,74 Cornell. L. Rev.1,4 (1988). See also Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, 83 Tex. L. Rev.331,394—401 (2004).
④ See Randy E. Barnett, Reconceiving the Ninth Amendment,74 Cornell. L. Rev.1,5 (1988)
① See Randy E. Barnett, Reconceiving the Ninth Amendment,74 Cornell. L. Rev.1,8 (1988)
② See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 12 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain).
③ See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 10 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain).
④ See U.. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 6 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain).
① See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 12 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain).
② See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 13—14 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain)
③ See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 10&14 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain)
④美国联邦宪法第6条第2款规定：“本宪法及依本宪法所制定之合众国法律,以及合众国已经缔结及将要缔结的一切条约,皆为全国之最高法律。”
⑤ See U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause 25 (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain).
⑥薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第1200页。
⑦ Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co.,1999, P.1322.
① See Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law, Collier Macmillan,1990, PP.143-160.
② See Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law, Collier Macmillan,1990, P.184.
③ See Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law, Collier Macmiilan,1990, P.185.
① Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.749.
② Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, PP.449—450.
① See Thomas B. McAffee, The Bill of Rights, Social Contract Theory, and the Rights Retained by the People,16 S. ILL. U. L.J.267 (1992).
② Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in J.D. Andrews, ed., The Works of James Wilson, vol.2,1896, P.307.
① Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in J.D. Andrews, ed., The Works of James Wilson, vol.2,1896, P.335.
②[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第429页。
② Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.439.
③ See John Hart Ely, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.181—182.
① See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison s Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.14—17.
② See Randy E. Barnett, A Ninth Amendment for Today's Constitution,26 Val. U. L. Rev.419,426 (1991)
③ Letter from James Madison to George Washington (Dec.5,1789). Excerpted from Bernard Schwartz, The Bill of Rights:A Documentary History, vol.2, Chelsea House Publishers,1971, P.1190.
④ See Ogden v. Saunders,12 Wheat.213,6 L. ed.606; Knowlton v. Moore,178 U. S.41,44 L. ed.969; Holmes V Jennison,14 Pet.504,10 L. ed.579; Blake v. McClung,172 U.S.239,43 L. ed.432; Cohens v. Virginia,6 Wheat.264,5 L. ed.257; Myers v. U.S.,272 U.S.52,71 L. ed.160.
① See John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967,998 (1993).
② See Joseph-F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,400— 401 (2007).
③ See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,179 (2003)
④ See John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust, Harvard University Press,1980, PP.38—40.
① Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law, Collier Macmillan Co.,1990, P.265.
② See Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,12 (2006).
① See Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery 58—59 (rev. ed.,1860). Excerpted from Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,10 (2006)
② Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery 58—59 (rev. ed.,1860). Excerpted from Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,10 (2006)
③ Wendell Phillips, Review of Lysander Spooner's Essay on the Unconstitutionality of Slavery 10 (Boston, Andrews & Prentis,1847). Excerpted from Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,10 (2006).
④ See Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,9 (2006).
⑤ Calvin R. Massey, Federalism and Fundamental Rights:the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.332.
① See Kyle Alexander Casazza, Inkblot:How the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause Protect Unenumerated Constitutional Rights, S. Calif. L. Rev.1383,1423 (2007).
② See Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Foundation Press,1978, P.570.
③ See Kyle Alexander Casazza, Inkblot:How the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause Protect Unenumerated Constitutional Rights, S. Calif. L. Rev.1383,1409 (2007).
④ See John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967,971 (1993)
⑤ See Thomas K. Landry, Unenumerated Federal Rights:Avenues for Application against the States,44 Fla. L. Rev.219, 247 (1992).
⑥ See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.269.
① Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.479 (1965).
② Palmer v. Thompson,403 U.S.217,233—234 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting). See also Doe v. Bolton,410 U.S.179, 210-211 (1973) (Douglas,-J., concurring); Roe v. Wade,410 U.S.113,152 (1973) (Blackmun, J.); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S.665,714 (1972) (Douglas; J., dissenting); Freeman v. Flake,405 U.S.1032,1032 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Stanley v. Illinois,405 U.S.645,651 (1972) (White, J.); Olff v. East Side Union High School Dist.,404 U.S.1042,1044 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); McGautha v. California,402 U.S.183,255n.4 (1971) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Osborn v. United States,385 U. S.323,341 (1966) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
③ Richmond Newspaper, Inc. v. Virginia,448 U. S.555,579 (n.15) (1980) (Berger, C. J.).
④ Planned Parenthood v.Danforth,428 U.S.52,60 (1976).
⑤ Buckley v. Valeo,424 U. S.1,59n.67,84 n.,113 (1976) (Per curiam).
⑥ Lubin v. Panish,415 U.S.709,721 n.* (1974) (Douglas, J., concurring).
①参见[美]诺曼·维拉：《宪法公民权》(影印本),法律出版社1999年版,第12页。
②参见张千帆：《西方宪政体系》(上册),中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第287页。
③关于Griswold v. Connecticut案发生的社会背景的介绍,除明确注明出处者外,参见屠振宇： “从Griswold案看宪法隐私权的确立”,载《法制现代化研究》(第11卷),南京师范大学出版社2007年版,第398页；张卓明：“法官能否推定未列举权利?——格里斯沃尔德诉康涅狄格州案述评”,《云南大学学报法学版》2008年第2期,第1—2页；薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第154页"birth control"词条；Norman Redlich, Are There "Certain Rights---etained by the People", in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989.
④ State v. Nelson,126 Conn.412,11 A.2d 856 (1940).
① Tileston v. Ullman,318 U. S.44 (1943)
②参见[美]阿丽塔·L·艾伦、理查德·C·托克音顿：《美国隐私法：学说、判例和立法》,冯建妹等编译,中国民主法制出版社2004年版,第374—375页。
①关于这4种意见的叙述,参见[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1115—1125页。
① Marbury v.Madison,5 U.S. (1 Cranch)137,174(1803).
①参见[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1123—1125页。
② Mapp v. Ohio,367 U.S.643(1961).
③[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1117—1118页。
① Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.479,493—494 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring).
②[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程；案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1120页。
① See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment,66 Curnell L. Rev.1,9 (1980); See also Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law, Collier Macmillan Co.,1990, P.183.
② See J.D. Droddy, Originalist Justification and the Methodology of Unenumerated Rights,1999 L. Rev. Mich. St. U. Det. C.L.809,810—811 (1999); Suzanna Sherry, The Founders'Unwritten Constitution,54 U. Chi. L. Rev.1127, P1013 —1014(1987); Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Bait. L. Rev.169,171 (2003)
③ See Lawrence B. Solum, The Supreme Court in Bondage:Constitutional Stare Decisis, Legal Formalism, and the Future of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.155,204 (2006).
④ See Thomas Grey, Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution?,27 Stan. L. Rev.703,710—714(1975); Michael S. Moore, Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution?,63 S. Cal. L. Rev.107,115 (1989); Suzanna Sherry, The Founders'Unwritten Constitution,54 U. Chi. L. Rev.1127,1127 (1987)
① See Randy E. Barnett, Getting Normative:The Role of Natural Rights in Constitutional Adjudication,12 Constitutional Commentary 93 (1995).
② See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Bait. L. Rev.169,171 (2003).
③ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.454.
④ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, PP.454—455. Barnett认为,这段话对司法机关的遗漏暗示,在麦迪逊看来,司法机关威胁较小或者没有威胁。See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.21 (n.56).
① Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.457.
②[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第392—393页。
③参见薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》"Marbury v. Madison"词条,法律出版社2003年版,第892页。
④英国法官解释的是法律,美国联邦最高法院因该案而获得了解释宪法的权力。因此,笔者认为,马歇尔的贡献主要是理论方面的,而非制度方面的。
⑤[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第11页。
⑥参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第19—20页。
①参见[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第42—43页。
②[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第58页。
③ John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本,第358页§136。
④[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第392—393页。
⑤ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.457.
⑥罗伯特·麦克罗斯基说：“当宪法的制订者看到最高法院以某种形式——或是反对各州——或是反对国会时,将会大为诧异。的确,有丰富的证据显示,那些曾经想到过这一问题的大多数代表,是期望着最高法院会这样做,不过,颇为沮丧的是,他们没有能够清楚地表达出他们的期望。……总之,在1790年,既没有宪法的文字,也没有宪法制订者及其批准者的确切意图,能够令人信服地肯定最高法院监督各州和国会的权力范围及至上性。至多可以说,宪法的内容和他们的意图没有排除最高法院成为后来历史的强有力的仲裁者。”[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第5页。笔者认为,罗伯特·麦克罗斯基的说法显然忽视了汉密尔顿和麦迪逊作为重要的制宪者的态度。
①[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第37页。
②[美]约瑟夫·斯托里：《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店2006年版,第140—141页。
③参见[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第37页。
④ See Charles Black, On Reading and Using the Ninth Amendment, in M. McDougal & W. N. Reisman, ed., Power and Policy in Quest of Law:Essays in Honor of Eugene Victor Rostow,1985, P.188.
① Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy,4 Harv. L. Rev.193 (1890)
①参见[荷]亨利·范·马尔赛文、格尔·范·德·唐：《成文宪法的比较研究》,陈云生译,华夏出版社1987年版,第255页。
②第四修正案规定：人人具有保障人身、住所、文件及财物的安全,不受无理之搜索和拘捕的权利；此项权利,不得侵犯。
③夏泽祥：“‘深圳妓女示众事件’的宪法学分析”,《山东社会科学》2007年第11期,第34页。
①以上关于隐私权理论发展阶段的归纳及其评介,参见屠振宇：“论隐私权的宪法保护”,中国人民大学2006年博士学位论文,第32—42页。
② James Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Cambridge University Press,1967, P.160.
③[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第201页。
①[美]罗斯科·庞德：《通过法律的社会控制》,沈宗灵等译,商务印书馆1984年版,第55页。
②[美]约翰·哈特·伊利：《民主与不信任——关于司法审查的理论》,朱中一、顾运译,法律出版社2003年版,第42页。
③参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第14—15页。
④ See Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,960 (2006)
①参见范进学：《宪法解释的理论建构》,山东人民出版社2004年版,第257、262页。
②参见范进学：《宪法解释的理论建构》,山东人民出版社2004年版,第279—280页。
③[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第392页。
④[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第393页。
① Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:A history of the American bill of rights, Oxford University Press,1977, P.169.
②[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版,第391页。
③[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第11—12页。
④ Monroe, The Supreme Court and the Constitution,18 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev.737,740 (1924)
⑤[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第14页。
① See Scott Douglas Gerber, To Secure These Rights:The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation, New York University Press,1995, PP.129—132.
②参见[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨：《沃伦法院对正义的追求》,信春鹰、张志铭译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第199页。
① See Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.451.
① Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.432.
② Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.437.
③ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, PP.446—447.
④ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.746.
⑤ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.749.
⑥该条提案的原文是：That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:No State
shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
⑦ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.441.
⑧ Gales and Seaton, ed.. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1.1834. P.755.
⑨ See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.195.
① Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.216.
② See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.281 —282.
③ Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.283—284.
④ See Charles J. Cooper, Limited Government and Individual Liberty:The Ninth Amendment's Forgotten Lessons, in Eugene W. Hickok, Jr., ed., The Bill of Rights:Original Meaning and Current Understanding, Virginia University Press, 1991,P.427.
① Calder v. Bull,3 U. S.(3 Dall.) 386,387—388 (1798)
② See Bennett. Patterson, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People: the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.111、113—114.
① See Bennett Patterson, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People: the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.115—118.
② See Thomas K. Landry, Unenumerated Federal Rights:Avenues for Application against the States,44 Fla. L. Rev.219, 221 (1992).
①在1787年美国宪法批准之时,当时一种颇为流行的观点认为,联邦政府的管理是一种“外来的统治”(foreign rule),联邦政府会摧毁自由。See Albert Beveridge, Life of John Marshall, vol.1, Houghton Mifflin,1916, PP.342—347.
②这种对制宪者的赞美之词,参见克林顿·罗西特为《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》所写的“序言”,载[美]爱德华·S·考文《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1996年版,第1I页。
③ See Bennett. Patterson, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People: the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.119.
④范进学：《宪法解释的理论建构》,山东人民出版社2004年版,第250页。
① Benjamin N·Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 83 (New Haven,1921).转引自[美]E·博登海默：《法理学：法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第521页。
②参见[美]E·博登海默：《法理学：法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第521页。
③ Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.281—282.
① See Simeon C. R. Mclntosh, On Reading the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Raoul Berger, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.219—220.
② Simeon C. R. Mclntosh, On Reading the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Raoul Berger, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.220.
① See Turner v. Safley,482.U. S.78 (1987); Loving v. Virginia,388 U. S.1 (1967).
② See Roe v. Wade,410 U.S.113 (1973); Planned Parenthood v. Casey,505 U. S.833 (1992).
③ See Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U. S.702 (1997).
④ See Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U. S.702 (1997)
⑤ See Lawrence v. Texas,539 U. S.558 (2003).
⑥参见屠振宇：“论隐私权的宪法保护”,中国人民大学2006年博士学位论文,第59页。
⑦参见[美]阿伦·艾德斯、克里斯托弗·N·梅：《宪法个人权利》(影印本),中信出版社2003年版,第70页。
⑧参见[美]诺曼·维拉：《宪法公民权》(影印本),法律出版社1999年版,第11—12页。
① Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.243.
② Calvin R. Massey, Federalism and Fundamental Rights:the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.291.
③ See Calvin R. Massey, Federalism and Fundamental Rights:the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.336.
④从严格意义上说,“正当法律程序条款”指第五修正案和第十四修正案第1款。但持第一种判断的学者们在论及未列举权利的来源时,有的指称第五修正案和第十四修正案,有的仅仅指称第十四修正案。
①参见薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第448页。
② See Wynehamer v. People 13 N. Y.378 (1856).
③参见薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第448页。与此相关的说法是,美国联邦最高法院Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Co. v. Minnesota,134 U. S.418 (1890)案的判决中,彻底实现了向“实
体性正当程序”的转变。参见屠振宇：“从Griswold案看宪法隐私权的确立”,载《法制现代化研究》(第11卷),
南京师范大学出版社2007年版,第403页注⑤。
④ Lochner v. New York,198 U. S.45 (1905).当时的纽约州劳动法规定,在饼干、面包或蛋糕店,任何职员不得被要求或允许每星期工作60小时以上,或每天工作10小时以上。面包店店主Lochner因允许他的工人每周工作60小时以上而被州政府罚款50美元。Lochner在州法院败诉后,上诉至联邦最高法院。联邦最高法院认为该法律侵犯了Lochner和他的雇工之间的契约自由,而契约自由被认为是第十四修正案第1款所保护的“自由”的一部分。显然,联邦最高法院对“正当法律程序”所作的解释是实质性的,这种解释理论被称为“实质性正当法律程序”理论,对应于“程序性正当法律程序”理论。
⑤据学者考证,最高法院大法官使用“实体性正当程序”一词始于1948年的Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma,334 U.S.62,90(1948)案。参见丁玮：《美国宪法上的正当法律程序——一个历史的视角》,黑龙江人民出版社2007年版,第147页。
①实体性正当法律程序是对联邦和州政府部门立法权的一项宪法限制,即“对行使政府权力做什么加以限制”,它“同法律的内容有关”,主要限制立法部门。[美]詹姆斯·M·伯恩斯等：《民治政府》,陆震纶等译,中国社会科学出版社1996年版,第211页。
②学术界的主流观点认为,在“权利法案”批准之时,州政府被视为公民权利的捍卫者,而联邦政府被视为“权利法案”的防范对象,所以,第九修正案是对联邦政府权力的限制。在Fox v. State of Ohio (12 L. Ed.213,5 How.410)案中,联邦最高法院认为：第九修正案所包含的禁止性规定并非是为州政府设置的界限,它们仅仅是对联邦权力的限制,以防止对各州的权利以及各州之公民的权利的干涉。针对这一判决,有学者提出了质疑：按照这种解释,第九修正案只能意味着——联邦政府不得否认或轻视未列举的人权,但否认或轻视未列举人权的权力由各州保留。所以,合理的解释是,第九修正案可以适用于州政府。See Bennett. Patterson, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.110—120.
①对三种原则的介绍,参见魏晓娜：“法理与论争：美国刑事正当程序的范围——兼论美国的正当程序方法论”,《比较法研究》2005年第1期,第102—107页。
②参见[美]阿伦·艾德斯、克里斯托弗·N·梅：《宪法个人权利》(影印本),中信出版社2003年版,第57页。
② West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish,300 U. S.379 (1937).在该案中,联邦最高法院推翻了此前有关“正当法律程序”条款的判决,维持了华盛顿州关于妇女最低工资立法的合宪性。联邦最高法院在判决中宣称：缔结契约之双方地位不平等,或为公共卫生而需要保障双方之一造时,政府应有权加以干涉。
②关于“实体性正当程序”原则被禁用的说明,参见屠振宇：“从Griswold案看宪法隐私权的确立”,载《法制现代化研究》(第11卷),南京师范大学出版社2007年版,第403—404页。
③[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1120页。
① Roe v. Wade,410 U. S.113 (1973).参见[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1157—1158、1161页。
② Roe v. Wade,410 U. S.113 (1973).参见[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1162页。
③ Planned Parenthood v. Casey,505 U.S.833 (1992).参见[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1184—1185页。
① See Bowers v. Hardwick,478 U. S.186,191 (1986)
② Lawrence v. Texas,539 U. S.558,578 (2003)
③ See Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Health Department,497 U S.261,279 (1990)
④ See Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U. S.702 (1997).
① See Palmer v. Thompson,403 U.S.217 (1971).
② See Doe v. Bolton,410 U. S.179 (1973)
③ See Lubin v. Parrish,415 U.S.709 (1974).
④ See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,448 U. S.555 (1980)
⑤ See Troxel v. Washington,503 U. S.57 (2000).
⑥ See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,185 (2003).
①参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第203页。
②参见[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(下册),陆符嘉、周青风、张千帆、沈根明译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第1172页。
③参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第206页。
①参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第201页。
② See Lawrence E. Mitchell, The Ninth Amendment and the "Jurisprudence of Original Intent",74 Geo. L. J.1719,1727 (1986). See also Jason S. Marks, Beyond Penumbras and Emanations:Fundamental Rights, The Spirit of the Revolution and the Ninth Amendment,5 Seton Hall Const. L. J.435,482 (1995).
③ See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,190 (2003).
④ See Kyle Alexander Casazza, Inkblot:How the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause Protect Unenumerated Constitutional Rights, S. Calif. L. Rev.1383,1409,1423 (2007),
⑤ See Thomas K. Landry, Unenumerated Federal Rights:Avenues for Application against the States,44 Fla. L. Rev.219, 221 (1992)
①约翰·哈特·伊利用green pastel redness来比拟“实体性正当程序”这一概念本身的矛盾,有译者将这一短语译为“绿色的红色蜡笔”。参见[美]约翰·哈特·伊利：《民主与不信任——关于司法审查的理论》,朱中一顾运译,法律出版社2003年版,第17页。笔者认为,该短语译为“绿色的浅红”似较妥当。
② Richard A. Posner法官在Ellis v. Hamilton,669 F.2d 510,512 (7th Cir.1982)中的讨论意见。转引自丁玮：《美国宪法上的正当法律程序——一个历史的视角》,黑龙江人民出版社2007年版,第146页注2。
③ Charles Warren, The New Liberty Under the Fourteenth Amendment,39 Harv. L. Rev.431,440 (1926).转引自[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(上册),张千帆等译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第329页。
① Allgeyer v. Louisiana,165 U. S.578 (1897).
② Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S.390 (1923).
③参见丁玮：《美国宪法上的正当法律程序——一个历史的视角》,黑龙江人民出版社2007年版,第110—112页。
④[美]约翰·哈特·伊利：《民主与不信任——关于司法审查的理论》,朱中一、顾运译,法律出版社2003年版,第19页。
⑤[美]约翰·哈特·伊利：《民主与不信任——关于司法审查的理论》,朱中一、顾运译,法律出版社2003年版,第14页。
⑥ See Marc C. Niles, Ninth Amendment Adjudication:An Alternative to Substantive Due Process Analysis of Personal Autonomy Rights,48 UCLA L. Rev.85,91 (n.19) (2000).
① See Laurence H. Tribe, Contrasting Constitutional Visions:Of Real and Unreal Differences,22 Harv. C. R.-C. L. L.Rev.95,105 (1987).
② See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,188 (2003)
③ See Moore v. City of East Cleveland,431 U. S.494,502 (1977)
④参见丁玮：《美国宪法上的正当法律程序——一个历史的视角》,黑龙江人民出版社2007年版,第147页。
⑤转引自丁玮：《美国宪法上的正当法律程序——一个历史的视角》,黑龙江人民出版社2007年版,第146—147页。
⑥ See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,169 (2003).
① Bowers v. Hardwick,106 S. Ct.2851 (1986) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
② Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,106 S. Ct.2187 (1986) (Stevens, J., concurring).
③参见屠振宇：“论隐私权的宪法保护”,中国人民大学2006年博士学位论文,第32—41页。
④ Calvin R. Massey, Federalism and Fundamental Rights:the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.332.
① Mark Tushnet, Can You Watch Unenumerated Rights Drift? 9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.209,218 (2006).
② See Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment,66 Cumell L. Rev.1,9 (1980); Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law 183 (Collier Macmillan Co.,1990); See also Calder v. Bull,3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386,399 (1798) (Iredell, J., concurring).
③ Mark Tushnet, Can You Watch Unenumerated Rights Drift? 9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.209,216 (2006).
① See Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.479,493 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring); Calvin R. Massey, Federalism and Fundamental Rights:the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989.
② See David N. Mayer, The Natural Rights Basis of the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Professor McAffee,16 S.Ⅲ. U. L. J.313,314 (1992)
③宪法第1条第8款第1项,第9款第4、5项。
④ See Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.94 —95.
① See Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights
Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.95 —96.
② Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.104.
③美国宪法修正案对选举权的保障,共有四个条款禁止联邦政府或州政府因下列原因而否定或剥夺公民的选举权：种族、肤色或以前曾服劳役(第十五修正案),性别(第十九修正案),未交税(第二十四修正案),年龄关系(第二十六修正案第1款)。但是,囿于时代的局限,Knowlton H.Kelsey没有提及第二十四、二十六修正案关于选举权的保障。
④美国宪法共有二十七条修正案。其中,第十八修正案已经被第二十一修正案废除。
⑤台湾学者李震山将未列举权利分为三类：(1)非真正之未列举权,意指某一权利自由的用语并未明白出现在宪法文本之中,但其内容可能已在宪法明示、明定或列举权利之保护范围或射程范围之内；(2)半真正之未列举权, 意指某项权利的名称未见诸宪法文本,但其内容至少已有部分在列举权利保障范围之内：(3)真正未列举权,意指某项权利未由宪法文本之明示或者列举,也无法由列举权推衍出来。参见李震山：《多元、宽容与人权保障——以宪法未列举权之保障为中心》,[台]元照出版公司2005年版,第18—20页。笔者认为,这种分类本身存在着逻辑上的矛盾,而三种分类相互之间也存在着逻辑上的矛盾,且这种分类是针对台湾地区宪法而言,故本文不采此种分类法。
① See Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.104.
② See Bennett. Patterson, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People: the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.125.
③ See Freeman v. Flake,404 U. S.1032 (1972)
④ See Williams v. Board of Educ.,388 F. Supp.93 (S. D. W. Va.1975)
⑤ See Burns v. Swenson,430 F.2d 771 (8th Cir.1970).
⑥ See United States v. Uhl,436 F.2d 773 (9th Cir.1970).
⑦ See United States v. Orito,413 U. S.139 (1973),
⑧ See Tanner v. Armco Steel Corp.,340 F. Supp.532 (S. D. Tex.1972).
① See Associated Press, Study:More Know 'Simpsons' Than Constitution, Mar.1,2006, http://www.foxnews. com/story/0,2933,186455,00.html.阅读日期：2010年3月15日。
② See Turner v. Safley,482 U. S.78,94—99 (1987); Loving v. Virginia,388 U. S.1,12 (1967).
③ See Pierce v. Society of Sisters,268 U. S.510,534—535 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S.390,399—401 (1923).
④ See Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson,316 U. S.535,535,541 (1942); See also Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U.S.702,720 (1997).
⑤ See Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S.479,481,484 (1965).
⑥ See Eisenstadt v. Baird,405 U. S.438,453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S.479,485 (1965)
⑦ See Rochin v. California,342 U. S.165,173 (1952).
⑧ See Roe v. Wade,410 U. S.113 (1973); Planned Parenthood v, Casey,505 U. S.833,857—858 (1992).
⑨ See Lawrence v. Texas,539 U. S.558 (2003).
⑩ See Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Health Department,497 U S.261 (1990); Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U. S.702 (1997).
11 See W. Murphy, J. Fleming & W. Harris, American Constitutional Interpretation, Foundation Press,1986, PP.1083— 1084.
① Letter from James Madison to George Washington (Dec.5,1789), in Bernard Schwartz, The Bill of Rights:A Documentary History, vol.2, Chelsea House Publishers,1971, P.1190.
② See John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967,972 (1993).
③ See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,90—91 (1992).
① See John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967,972 (1993)
② See John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967,984 (1993)
③ See John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967,986 (1993)
④ See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,395 (2007).
⑤ See Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49,89&n.223 (1992).
① See John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967,969 (1993); Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev.597,645 (2005)
② See Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University. Press,1989, P.97.
③ See Knowlton H. Kelsey, The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.98.
④ See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,199 (1996).
⑤ See Chase Sanders, Ninth Life:An Interpretive Theory of the Ninth Amendment,69 Ind. L. J.759,806—807 (1994).
⑥ See Samuel Pufendorf, Of the Law of Natural and Nations(Basil Kennett trans.,4th ed.,1729). Excerpted from Jeffrey D. Jackson, The Modalities of the Ninth Amendment:Ways of Thinking about Unenumerated Rights Inspired by Philip Bobbitt's Constitutional Fate,75 Miss. L.J.495,513 (2006)
① See Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,21 (2006)
② See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,203—204 (1996).
③ See Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,975 (2006)
④ See Sotirios A. Barber, Welfare and the Constitution 1 (2003). Excerpted from Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,976 (2006).
⑤ See Cass Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights:FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More than Ever 5 (2004). Excerpted from Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,976 (2006)
① See Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U. S.702,719—720 (1997).
② See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,389 (2007).
③ See Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,17 (2006).
④参见薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第589页。
④ See Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co.,1999, P.683.
⑥徐显明主编：《公民权利义务通论》,群众出版社1991年版,第133页。
① Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in J. D. Andrews, ed., The Works of James Wilson, vol.2,1896, P.308.
② See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison s Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.35—36.
① See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.37.
② See Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law, Collier Macmillan Co.,1990, PP.143 —144.
③ Gales and Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol.1,1834, P.456.
④ See James Wilson and John Smilie Debate the Need for a Bill of Rights (Nov.28,1787), in Bernard Bailyn, ed., The Debate on the Constitution, Library of America,1993, PP.807—808.
⑤ See Samuel E. Morison, The Oxford History of the American People, Oxford University Press,1965, P.272; See also Ray A. Billington, American History before 1877, Littlefield & Adams Co.,1984, P.70.
⑥参见[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版,第8、29页；[美]查尔斯·比尔德、玛丽·比尔德：《美国文明的兴起》(第一卷),许亚芬译,商务印书馆1991年版,第111页：曹绍濂：《美国政治制度史》,甘肃人民出版社1982年版,第15—16页。
①参见[美]卡尔·贝克尔：“论(独立宣言>——政治思想史研究”,彭刚译,载《18世纪哲学家的天城》,北京三联书店2001年版,第252—253页。
② See Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.243 (n.5).
③ See Chase Sanders, Ninth Life:An Interpretive Theory of the Ninth Amendment,69 Ind. L. J.759,761 (1994)
④ See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.44.
① See Simeon C. R. Mclntosh, On Reading the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Raoul Berger, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.236—237.
② Lawrence E. Mitchell, The Ninth Amendment and the "Jurisprudence of Original Intent",74 Geo. L. J.1719,1727 (1986).
③ See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,170 (2003)
④ See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169,192—194 (2003).
① See Simeon C. R. Mclntosh, On Reading the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Raoul Berger, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.236.
② See Jeffrey D. Jackson, The Modalities of the Ninth Amendment:Ways of Thinking about Unenumerated Rights Inspired by Philip Bobbitt's Constitutional Fate,75 Miss. L. J.495,518 (2006)
③ See John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust, Harvard University Press,1980, PP.38—40.
④ See Simeon C. R. Mclntosh, On Reading the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Raoul Berger, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.235—236.
⑤ See Simeon C. R. Mclntosh, On Reading the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Raoul Berger, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press, 1989, PP.240—241.
⑥ See Marsh, Historical Interpretation and the History of Criticism, in P. Damon, ed., Literary Criticism and Historical Understanding, Columbia University Press,1967, P.4.
① See Akhil Reed Amar, Intratextualism,112 Harv. L. Rev.747 (1999)
② See Randy E E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.37.
③ See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.38.
① See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison s Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.38—39.
② See Michael W. McConnell, The Right to Die and the Jurisprudence of Tradition,1997 Utah L. Rev.665,682 (1997).
③ See Michael W. McConnell, Textualism and the Dead Hand of the Past,66 Geo. Wash. L. Rev.1127,1136 (1998).
① See Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.479,493—494 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring).
② Moore v. City of East Cleveland,431 U. S.494,503 (1977)
③ Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U. S.702,767 (1997).
④参见屠振宇：“未列举基本权利的认定方法”,《法学》2007年第9期,第79—80页。
①参见李震山：《多元、宽容与人权保障——以宪法未列举权之保障为中心》,[台]元照出版公司2005年版,第18—19页。
② See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.44.
③ See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.43.
①这一方法基于“人的尊严”这一理念,认为先于国家而存在的人应当是国家存在的目的,尊重和保护人的尊严是国家的义务。参见屠振宇：“未列举基本权利的认定方法”,《法学》2007年第9期,第80页。
① See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, PP.40—41.
③ See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.42.
① See Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.41.
② See Jeffrey D. Jackson, The Modalities of the Ninth Amendment:Ways of Thinking about Unenumerated Rights Inspired by Philip Bobbitt's Constitutional Fate,75 Miss. L. J.495,539 (2006)
③ See Simeon C. R. Mclntosh, On Reading the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Raoul Berger, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press, 1989, P.241.
④ Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U. S.702,767—768 (1997)
① See Jeffrey D. Jackson, The Modalities of the Ninth Amendment:Ways of Thinking about Unenumerated Rights Inspired by Philip Bobbitt's Constitutional Fate,75 Miss. L.J.495,533 (2006).
①关于该方法的描述,See Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Bait. L. Rev.169,215—220 (2003).
① See Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S.479,493—494 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring)
② See Philip Bobbitt, Constitutional Interpretation, Oxford, Basil Blackwell,1991, P.20.
③ Calvin R. Massey, Federalism and Fundamental Rights:the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.335.
④参见[美]约翰·哈特·伊利：《民主与不信任——关于司法审查的理论》“代译序”,朱中一、顾运译,法律 出版社2003年版,第1—2页。
①屠振宇：“未列举基本权利的认定方法”,《法学》2007年第9期,第82页。
②参见王广辉：“论宪法未列举权利”,《法商研究》2007年第5期,第64—65页。
③罗伯特·麦克洛斯基分析认为,联邦最高法院之所以备受尊敬,是因为它虽然体验到民众的期望,但却没有成为民意的俘虏；它受制于自己的传统而分担治国之责,但又使自己的职责不超过自己的能力所及。参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第16页。
①参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》“中译本序言”,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第5页。
① Randy E·Barnett, Introduction:James Madison's Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.26.
① Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,181 (1996).
②继Roe v. Wade案之后,联邦最高法院大法官在2000年的Troxel v. Granville案中再次提及第九修正案。在该案中,大法官Scalia在其反对意见中认为,父母对其子女的培养进行指导的权利是第九修正案中的“人民保留的权利”。See Troxel v. Granville,530 U. S.57,92 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
③在2005年、2006年的国会听证会上,无论是作为联邦最高法院大法官候选人的John Roberts、Samuel Alito,还是对两位候选人提问的参议员,都忽略了第九修正案。尽管如此,由于John Robe、Samuel Alito承认隐私权的存在,所以,尽管他们用“实体性正当程序”分析取代了第九修正案分析,但参议员们似乎对此是满意的。SeeJoseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,410 (2007). Sonia Maria Sotomayor作为联邦最高法院大法官候选人,于2009年5月获得奥巴马(Barack Obama)总统的提名,7月参议院司法委员会进行听证,8月6日得到参议院的批准。但是,关于Sonia Maria Sotomayor对第九修正案的看法,尚未发现有关资料。这或许也在某种程度上反映出,第九修正案在现阶段仍然不受重视。
① See Palmer v. Thompson,403 U.S.217,233—234 (1971) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
② See Lubin v. Panish,415 U. S.709,721 (1974) (Douglas, J., concurring)
③ See Troxel v. Granville,530 U. S.57,92 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting)
④ See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,199 (1996)
⑤这6个案件是:Planned Parenthood v. Casey,505 U.S.833,1000(1992)(Scalia, J., dissenting); Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S.186,201 (1986) (Blackmun, J., dissenting); Massachusetts v. Upton,466 U.S.727,737 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,448 U.S.555,579(n.15)(1980)(plurality); id., at 605(Rehnquist, J., dissenting); Planned Parenthood v. Danforth,428 U. S.52,60 (1976); Buckley v. Valeo,424 U. S.1,59 (n.67),84 (n.113) (1976) (Per curiam)
⑥大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚认为,第九修正案中的由人民保留的权利的确存在,但法官无权实施这些权利。SeeTroxel v. Granville,530 U.S.57,91—92 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting),
⑦ See United States v. Farrell,443 F.2d 355 (9th Cir.1971)
① See Bright v. Nunn,448 F.2d 245 (6th Cir.1971).
② See Gotkin v. Miller,379 F. Supp.859 (E. D. N. Y.1974).
③ See Gasper v. Louisiana Stadium and Exposition Dist.,418 F. Supp.716 (E. D. La.1976)
④ See National Ass'n of Property Owners v. U. S.,499 F. Supp.1223 (D. Minn.1980).
⑤ See O'Donnell through v. Village of Downers Grove,656 F. Supp.562 (N. D. Ⅲ.1987)
⑥ See Garlic v. Food and Drug Administration,783 F. Supp.4 (D. D. C.1992)
⑦ See Western District of Pennsylvania in United States v. Cook,311 F. Supp.618,620 (W. D. Pa.1970)
⑧ See Anderson v. Laird,437 F.2d 912,914—915 (7th Cir.1971).
⑨ See Adler v. Montefiore Hospital Ass'n,311 A.2d 634,642 (Pa.1973).
⑩ See Sorentino v. Family & Children's Services,378 A.2d 18,20—21 (N. J.1977).
11 See Commonwealth v. Leis,243 N. E.2d 898,903—904 (Mass.1969).
12 See Concerned Citizens of Neb. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n,970 F.2d 421,426—427 (8th Cir.1992)
① See United States v. Warin,530 F.2d 103,108 (6th Cir.1976).
② See Baker v. Nelson,191 N. W.2d 185,186 (Minn:1971)
③“未列举权利观”和“有限政府观”是“肯定说”和“否定说”的另一种称谓。“未列举权利观”即“肯定说”,承认第九修正案是未列举权利的来源：“有限政府观”即“否定说”,认为第九修正案并不包括任何权利；相反,它只是一个解释规则——联邦政府是一个权力有限的政府。
④ See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,181 (1996)
⑤ Adarand Constructors v. Pena,515 U. S.200 (1995).
⑥ Planned Parenthood v. Casey,505 U. S.833 (1992).
⑦ United States v. Lopez,514 U. S.549 (1995)
⑧ See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,201—203 (1996)
① Cameron S. Matheson 和 Russell L. Caplan 持这种观点。Carneron S. Matheson 的看法， See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,203 (1996). Russell L. Caplan认为：“恰恰是因为它本身的成功,第九修正案才变得湮没不闻。它的实际意义(actualsienificance)被想当然地认为是显而易见的,它在批准会议上发生的争论中的角色已被忘记,本条修正案独家实现了麦迪逊对‘权利法案’所抱有的一项热望。’'Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, in Randy E·Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, George Mason University Press,1989, P.290.
②参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》“中译本序言”,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第3页。
③笔者的这种推测是受了下列观点的影响：Laurence Tribe教授认为,第九修正案至少陈述了一个解释规则,按照这一规则,不应把那些受“权利法案”保障的利益并入第十四修正案；第九修正案为那些未列举的基本权利提供了法律源泉。See Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Foundation Press,1978, P.570. Kyle Alexander Casazza认为,第九修正案比第十四修正案的“实体性正当程序”能够为自然权利的保护提供更具有一致性和可预测性的文本依据；如果不并入第九修正案,那么,第十四修正案就不是未列举权利的来源。SeeKyle Alexander Casazza, Inkblot:How the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause Protect Unenumerated Constitutional Rights, S. Calif. L. Rev.1383,1409,1423 (2007)
①[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第164页。
②参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第279页。
③参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第276—277页。
④厄尔·沃伦(Earl Warren)在1953—1969年期间任首席大法官,对维护公民权利自由起了很大的推动作用；威廉·布伦南(William J. Brennan Jr.)在1956—1990年期间任联邦最高法院大法官。桑福德·列文森认为,自1956年布伦南任职联邦最高法院以后,在此后30年的时间内,他最终成为最高法院内部开明派联盟的中流砥柱,他的重要性远远超过了同一时期的两位首席大法官厄尔·沃伦和沃伦·伯格。自1958—1983年期间的最高法院贴上“布伦南法院”的标志也不为过。参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第175—176页。
⑤参见[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第187页。
① See Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179,191—198 (1996).
① See Cameron S.Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B.C.L.Rev.179,203—204(1996).
② See http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussupremecourt/tp/Chief-Justice-John-Roberts.htm.阅读日期：2009年9月20日。
③ See http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussupremecourt/tp/Justice-Samuel-Alito.htm.阅读日期：2009年9月20日。
④ See http://www.religioustolerance.org/scotuscon9.htm.阅读日期:2009年9月20日。
①参见杨晴川、王薇：“美国联邦最高法院首位拉美裔大法官产生”,新华网,阅读日期：2009年8月20日。
② See http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussupremecourt/tp/Justice-Samuel-Alito.htm..阅读日期：2009年9月20日。
③ See http://www.religioustolerance.org/scotuscon9.htm..阅读日期：2009年9月20日。
④ See http://www.religioustolerance.org/scotuscon9.htm.阅读日期：2009年9月20日。
① See Ken I.Kersch,Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U.Pa. J.Const.L.957,972(2006)
②当代关于司法审查的争论可以追溯到以1954年的Brown v.Board of education案为肇始的司法能动主义(judicial activism).以该案为开端,最高法院在厄尔·沃伦领导下,以宪法的名义处理了一系列有争议的社会问题。由于“沃伦法院”推翻了许多立法,沃伦以及“沃伦法院”在20世纪50、60年代遭受了许多的政治批评。在Roe案之前,司法能动主义(judicial activism)的批评者并未找到足够的理论依据来批评司法能动主义。Roe案的判决是依据第十四修正案做出的。但是,该案与第十四修正案的关联较之Brown v. Board of education案与第十四修正案的关联较远这一事实使批评者看到,司法能动主义抛弃了宪法条款背后的“原初意图”。Roe案的批评者们认为,在宪法解释中,法院应当把宪法语言和原初意图作为首要的指南,这种方法就是“解释主义"(interpretivism):在宪法语言和原初意图之外寻求某种文化价值,并在这种文化价值的指引下做出宪法裁判的方法,就是“非解释主义”(noninterpretivism).“解释主义”(interpretivism)与“非解释主义”(nonintrpretivism)是一对令人难以捉摸的概念,要表述这两种宪法解释方法的更为恰当的同义词应当是“原旨主义”(originalism)与“非原旨主义”(nonoriginalism)。在罗纳德·里根总统的任期内,“解释主义’'(interpretivism)与“非解释主义’'(noninterpretivism)的争论成了一个政治问题。当时的联邦总检察长Edwin Meese强烈反对司法能动主义,呼吁回到“原初意图的法理学”(jurisprudence of original intention)。1987年,罗纳德·里根总统提名持此类观点的Robert Bork接替在最高法院处于“决定票”(swing vote)地位的Lewis F. Powell,但遭到参议院的否决。此后,关于“解释主义”(interpretivism)与"非解释主义"(noninterpretivism)的争论仍在继续,而且这一争议的焦点日益明显,即:在宪政民主的框架之内,司法能动主义的适当限度是什么。尽管如此,但有趣的是,除了Robert Bork外,很少有法官介入这样的争论。即便有个别的法官介入了这样的争论,他们也不使用“解释主义”(interpretivism)与“非解释主义’'(noninterpretivism)这样的术语。自20世纪80年代以来,在最高法院内部保守主义政治倾向占了主流,多数大法官在司法审查中不是用“解释主义”(interpretivism)这个术语而是用“司法克制”(judicial restraint)这个术语来表述他们的司法哲学。See Robert W.Bennett,Interpretivism,http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/ eamc_03/eamc_03_01322.html#,阅读日期：2009年10月6日。
① See Troxel v. Granville,530 U. S.57,91—29 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
② See Sotirios A. Barber, Welfare and the Constitution 1 (2003). Excerpted from Ken I. Kersch. Evervthine Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,976 (2006).
③ See Cass Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights:FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Whv We Need it More than Ever 5 (2004). Excerpted from Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,976 (2006).
① Ken I. Kersch发现,在美国,有越来越多的作品认为,战后的国际秩序是一种新的、不同的政治体制,它本身就是一种宪法秩序。这些作品的作者们呼吁各个国家的官员们共同努力,实现国际人权公约规定的权利。See Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 957,977 (2006).
② See Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,974 (2006).
①参见[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨：《沃伦法院对正义的追求》,信春鹰、张志铭译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第90—91页。
①[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第161页。
①[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》(上卷),董果良译,商务印书馆2008年版,第52页。
②参见[美]E·博登海默：《法理学：法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第517页。
③参见[美]E·博登海默：《法理学：法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第521页。
①参见李震山：《多元、宽容与人权保障——以宪法未列举权之保障为中心》,[台]元照出版公司2005年版,第34—35页。
② See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,396 (2007).
③美国学者和实务部门对于该条款的字面涵义有着相同的理解。他们的分歧体现在该条款是否具有权利推定功能方面,“肯定说”认为可以从该条款中推导出未列举权利,“否定说”则由于担心司法自由裁量权的滥用而持反对意见。
④参见林来梵、季彦敏：“人权保障：作为原则的意义”,《法商研究》2005年第4期,第66页。
⑤参见焦洪昌：“‘国家尊重和保障人权’的宪法分析”,《中国法学》2004年第3期,第46—47页；韩大元：“宪法文本中‘人权条款’的规范分析”,《法学家》2004年第4期,第12页。
⑥参见焦洪昌：“‘国家尊重和保障人权’的宪法分析”,《中国法学》2004年第3期,第46—47页；韩大元：“宪法文本中‘人权条款’的规范分析”,《法学家》2004年第4期,第12页；林来梵、季彦敏：“人权保障：作为原则的意义”,《法商研究》2005年第4期,第65页。
⑦ See Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1,21 (2006); Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957,975 (2006).
①参见林来梵、季彦敏：“人权保障：作为原则的意义”,《法商研究》2005年第4期,第65页；吕世伦、张学超：“‘以人为本’与社会主义法治——一种法哲学上的阐释”,《法制与社会发展》2005年第1期,第95—96页。
② See Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth.Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Riehts,48 B.C. L. Rev.387,395 (2007).
③参见钟丽娟：“自然权利制度化研究”,山东大学2008年博士学位论文,第28页。
④参见徐显明：“制度性人权研究”,武汉大学2000年博士学位论文,第42页。
①尽管我国传统文化中没有西方式的“自然法”、“自然权利”或“人权”术语,但人之作为人的要求和尊严是人之天性、民之本性。所以,我国传统文化中蕴涵着自然权利概念。要发掘具有中国本土特色的自然权利理论,具体路径是,把以民为本的民本论转变为民之所本的民本论,把他本的民本论转变为自本的民本论,把以民为手段的民本论转变为以民为目的的民本论。这种与以人为本观念相呼应的新的民本学说能够为当代中国的民权理论和政治实践提供理论支持。参见夏勇：“民本与民权——中国权利话语的历史基础”,《中国社会科学》2004年第5期。
②徐显明：“世界人权的发展与中国人权的进步——关于人权法律史的理论思考”,《中共中央党校学报》2008年第4期,第32页。
③从人权、法治、宪政角度来看,“以人为本”可以解读为“以人的权利为本”。参见徐显明：“以人为本与中国法治问题研究”,《学习与探索》2006年第6期,第84页；吕世伦、张学超：“‘以人为本’与社会主义法治——一种法哲学上的阐释”,《法制与社会发展》2005年第1期,第95页。
④童之伟：“保障基本权利是法治的首要价值”,《人民论坛》2006年第11期,第51页。
①参见王磊、韩姗姗：“违宪审查的机构之争”,载韩大元主编《共和国六十年法学论争实录(宪法卷)》,厦门大学出版社2009年版,第214—227页。
②关于明治维新的论述,参见魏晓阳：《制度突破与文化变迁——透视日本宪政的百年历程》,北京大学出版社2006年版。魏晓阳在该书中并没有明确提出“制度创新可以引领文化变迁”的观点,但其书名似乎意在说明,明治维新是一场没有充分文化准备的制度突变,正是这样的制度突变导致了日本文化的转型。
③[美]L.亨金：《权利的时代》,信春鹰、吴玉章、李林译,知识出版社1997年版,第115页。
①[美]罗斯科·庞德：《通过法律的社会控制》,沈宗灵等译,商务印书馆1984年版,第55页。
1.王希：《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》(修订本),北京大学出版社2000年版。
2.杨海坤主编：《宪法基本权利新论》,北京大学出版社2004年版。
3.林来梵：《从宪法规范到规范宪法》,法律出版社2001年版。
4.韩大元主编：《共和国六十年法学论争实录(宪法卷)》,厦门大学出版社2009年版。
5.张千帆：《西方宪政体系》(上册),中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
6.范进学：《宪法解释的理论建构》,山东人民出版社2004年版。
7.李震山：《多元、宽容与人权保障——以宪法未列举权之保障为中心》,[台]元照出版公司2005年版。
8.徐显明：《公民权利义务通论》,群众出版社1991年版。
9.曹绍濂：《美国政治制度史》,甘肃人民出版社1982年版。
10.魏晓阳：《制度突破与文化变迁——透视日本宪政的百年历程》,北京大学出版社2006年版。
11.赵宝云：《西方五国宪法通论》,中国人民公安大学出版社1994年版。
12.李步云主编：《宪法比较研究》,法律出版社1998年版。
13.谢觉哉：《谢觉哉日记》,人民出版社1981年版。
14.吴耘：《美国法治面面观》,北京大学出版社2002年版。
15.陆润康：《美国联邦宪法论》,书海出版社2003年版。
16.陈纪安：《美国法律》,中国科学技术大学出版社2002年版。
17.丁玮：《美国宪法上的正当法律程序——一个历史的视角》,黑龙江人民出版社2007年版。
18.周天玮：《法治理想国：苏格拉底与孟子的虚拟对话》,商务印书馆2000年版。
19.[美]麦迪逊：《辩论：美国制宪会议记录》(上、下),尹宣译,辽宁教育出 版社2003年版。
20.[美]阿丽塔·L·艾伦、理查德-C-托克音顿：《美国隐私法：学说、判例和立法》,冯建妹等编译,中国民主法制出版社2004年版。
21.[美]伯纳德·施瓦茨：《美国法律史》,王军等译,法律出版社2007年版。
22.[美]查尔斯·比尔德、玛丽·比尔德：《美国文明的兴起》(第一卷),许亚芬译,商务印书馆1991年版。
23.[美]查尔斯·比尔德：《美国宪法的经济观》,何希齐译,商务印书馆1984年版。
24.[美]保罗·布莱斯特等编著：《宪法决策的过程：案例与材料》(上、下),张千帆等译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
25.[美]L.亨金：《权利的时代》,信春鹰、吴玉章、李林译,知识出版社1997年版。
26.[美]汉密尔顿等：《联邦党人文集》,程逢如等译,商务印书馆1980年版。
27.[法]孟德斯鸠：《论法的精神》(上、下),张雁深译,商务印书馆1961年版。
28.[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》(上、下),董国良译,商务印书馆1988年版。
29.[美]塞缪尔·埃利奥特·莫里斯等：《美利坚共和国的成长》(上卷),南开大学历史系美国史研究室译,天津人民出版社1980年版。
30.[美]路易斯·亨金、阿尔伯特·J·罗森塔尔编：《宪政与权利》,郑戈等译,北京三联书店1996年版。
31.[美]约瑟夫·斯托里：《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店2006年版。
32.[英]洛克：《政府论(下篇)》,叶启芳、瞿菊农译,商务印书馆1964年版。
33.[美]纪念美国宪法颁布200周年委员会编：《美国公民与宪法》,劳娃、许旭译,清华大学出版社2006年版。
34.[美]爱德华·S·考文：《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,北京三联书店1.996年版。
35.[美]汉密尔顿等：《美国宪法原理》,严欣淇译,中国法制出版社2005年版。
36.[美]卡尔威因、帕尔德森：《美国宪法释义》,徐卫东、吴新平译,华夏出 版社1989年版。
37.[美]马克斯·法仑德：《美国宪法的制定》,董成美译,中国人民大学出版社1987年版。
38.[美]赫伯特·J·斯托林：《反联邦党人赞成什么——宪法反对者的政治思想》,汪庆华译,北京大学出版社2006年版。
39.[美]詹姆斯·M.伯恩斯等：《民治政府》,陆震纶等译,中国社会科学出版社1996年版。
40.[美]约翰·哈特·伊利：《民主与不信任——关于司法审查的理论》,朱中一、顾运译,法律出版社2003年版。
41.[美]罗伯特·麦克罗斯基：《美国最高法院》,任东来、孙雯、胡晓进译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版。
42.[荷]亨利·范·马尔赛文、格尔·范·德·唐著：《成文宪法的比较研究》,陈云生译,华夏出版社1987年版。
43.[美]罗斯科·庞德：《通过法律的社会控制》,沈宗灵等译,商务印书馆1984年版。
44.[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨：《沃伦法院对正义的追求》,信春鹰、张志铭译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
45.[美]E·博登海默：《法理学：法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
46.[美]卡尔·贝克尔：《18世纪哲学家的天城》,何兆武等译,北京三联书店2001年版。
47.[日]木下太郎编：《九国宪法选介》,康树华译,群众出版社1981年版。
1.林来梵、季彦敏：《人权保障：作为原则的意义》,《法商研究》2005年第4期。
2.韩大元：《宪法文本中“人权条款”的规范分析》,《法学家》2004年第4期。
3.童之伟：《保障基本权利是法治的首要价值》,《人民论坛》2006年第11期。
4.王广辉：《论宪法未列举权利》,《法商研究》2007年第5期。
5.王磊、韩姗姗：《违宪审查的机构之争》,载韩大元主编《共和国六十年法学 论争实录(宪法卷)》,厦门大学出版社2009年版。
6.焦洪昌：《“国家尊重和保障人权”的宪法分析》,《中国法学》2004年第3期。
7.屠振宇：《从Griswold案看宪法隐私权的确立》,《法制现代化研究》(第11卷),南京师范大学出版社2007年版。
8.屠振宇：《论隐私权的宪法保护》,中国人民大学2006年博士学位论文。
9.屠振宇：《未列举基本权利的认定方法》,《法学》2007年第9期。
10.张卓明：《法官能否推定未列举权利?——格里斯沃尔德诉康涅狄格州案述评》,《云南大学学报法学版》2008年第2期。
11.夏泽祥：《“深圳妓女示众事件”的宪法学分析》,《山东社会科学》2007年第11期。
12.秦强：《人权条款入宪之争》,载韩大元主编《共和国六十年法学论争实录(宪法卷)》,厦门大学出版社2009年版。
13.魏晓娜：《法理与论争：美国刑事正当程序的范围——兼论美国的正当程序方法论》,《比较法研究》2005年第1期。
14.杨晴川、王薇：《美国联邦最高法院首位拉美裔大法官产生》,新华网,阅读日期：2008年8月20日。
15.孙立平：《和谐社会重在机制建设》,《中国改革》2005年第4期。
16.夏勇：《民本与民权——中国权利话语的历史基础》,《中国社会科学》2004年第5期。
17.吕世伦、张学超：《“以人为本”与社会主义法治——一种法哲学上的阐释》,《法制与社会发展》2005年第1期。
18.任东来：《美国宪法的形成：一个历史的考察》,《社会科学论坛》2004年第12期。
19.褚乐平：《联邦党人与反联邦党人关于宪法批准问题的争论》,《史学月刊》2003年第7期。
20.褚乐平：《(美国宪法>批准史探》,《美国研究》2003年第1期。
21.李永清：《重评联邦主义者的政治思想》,《史学月刊》1994年第4期。
22.徐显明：《世界人权的发展与中国人权的进步——关于人权法律史的理论思考》,《中共中央党校学报》2008年第4期。
23.’徐显明：《以人为本与中国法治问题研究》“主持人语”,《学习与探索》2006 年第6期。
24.徐显明：《制度性人权研究》,武汉大学2000年博士学位论文。
25.钟丽娟：《自然权利制度化研究》,山东大学2008年博士学位论文。
26.秦强：《我国宪法人权条款研究》,中国人民大学2009年博士学位论文。
27.张薇薇：《宪法未列举权利研究》,武汉大学2008年博士学位论文。
1. Gales & Seaton, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (1834).
2. Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (2d ed.,1836).
3. Randy E-Barnett, ed., The Rights Retained by the People:the history and meaning of the Ninth Amendment (George Mason University Press,1989).
4. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Fred B. Rothman & Co.,1991)
5. Jackson, The Supreme Court in the American System of Government (Harvard University Press,1955)
6. Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law (Foundation Press,1978).
7. Albert Beveridge, Life of John Marshall (Houghton Mifflin,1916).
8. Gaillard Hunt, ed., The Writings of James Madison (1904).
9. Bernard Bailyn, ed., Pamphlets of the American Revolution 1750—1776 (Harvard University Press,1965).
10. George W·Garey, The Federalist:Design for a Constitutional Republic (University of Illinois Press,1989).
11. Bernard Schwartz, The Bill of Rights:A Documentary History (Chelsea House Publishers,1971).
12. Bernard Schwartz, The great rights of mankind:a history of the American bill of rights (Oxford University Press,1977).
13. J.D. Andrews, ed., The Works of James Wilson (1896).
14. John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust (Harvard University Press,1980).
15. Eugene W. Hickok, Jr., ed., The Bill of Rights:Original Meaning and Current Understanding (Virginia University Press,1991).
16. Ray A. Billington, American History before 1877 (Littlefield & Adams Co., 1984).
17. Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution:The Presumption of Liberty (Princeton University Press,2004).
18. Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:The Political Seduction of the Law (Collier Macmillan Co.,1990).
19. Philip Bobbitt, Constitutional Interpretation (Oxford, Basil Blackwell,1991).
20. Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum:The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (University Press of Kansas,1985).
21. Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776—1787 (University of North Carolina Press,1969).
22. Charles G. Haines, The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy (New York: Russell and Russell,2d ed.1959).
23. William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States (Universitv of Chicago Press,1953).
24. Scott Douglas Gerber, To Secure These Rights:The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation (New York University Press,1995).
25. W. Murphy, J. Fleming & W. Harris, American Constitutional Interpretation (Foundation Press,1986).
26. James Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (Cambridge University Press,1967).
27. Samuel E. Morison, The Oxford History of the American People (Oxford University Press,1965).
28. James v. calvi, Susan Coleman, American Law and Legal System,高等教育出版社2002年影印版。
29. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government,中国政法大学出版社2003年影印本。
30.[美]诺曼·维拉：《宪法公民权》(影印本),法律出版社1999年版。
31.[美]阿伦·艾德斯、克里斯托弗-N·梅：《宪法个人权利》(影印本),中信出版社2003年版。
1. Cameron S. Matheson, The Once and Future Ninth Amendment,38 B. C. L. Rev.179 (December,1996).
2. Ringold, The History of the Enactment of the Ninth Amendment and Its Recent Development,8 Tulsa L. J.4 (1972).
3. U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Wrong Turns on the Road to Judicial Activism:The Ninth Amendment and Privileges or Immunities Clause. (Report to the Attorney General. Scanned at Case, tm—This work is in the public domain).
4. Randy E. Barnett, Getting Normative:The Role of Natural Rights in Constitutional Adjudication,12 Constitutional Commentary 93 (Spring,1995).
5. Randy E. Barnett, A Ninth Amendment for Today's Constitution,26 Val. U. L. Rev. 419 (1991).
6. Dunbar, James Madison and the Ninth Amendment,42 Va. L. Rev,641 (1956)
7. Randy E. Barnett, Reconceiving the Ninth Amendment,74 Cornell. L. Rev.1 (1988).
8. Randy E. Barnett, Who's Afraid of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.1 (October,2006).
9. Thomas K. Landry, Unenumerated Federal Rights:Avenues for Application against the States,44 Fla. L. Rev.219 (April,1992).
10. Norman Redlich,Are There Certain Rights Retained by the People?,37.N.Y. U. L. Rev.787 (1962).
11. Joseph F. Kadlec, Employing the Ninth Amendment to Supplement Substantive Due Process:Recognizing the History of the Ninth Amendment and the Existence of Nonfundamental Unenumerated Rights,48 B.C. L. Rev.387 (March,2007).
12. Calvin R. Massey, The Natural Law Component of the Ninth Amendment,61 U. Cin. L. Rev.49 (1992).
13. Russell L. Caplan, The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment,69 Va. L. Rev.223 (1983).
14. Thomas Grey, Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution? 27 Stan. L. Rev.703 (1975).
15. J. D. Droddy, Originalist Justification and the Methodology of Unenumerated Rights,1999 L. Rev. Mich. St. U. Det. C.L.809 (Winter,1999).
16. Suzanna Sherry, The Founders'Unwritten Constitution,54 U. Chi. L. Rev.1127 (1987).
17. Chase Sanders, Ninth Life:An Interpretive Theory of the Ninth Amendment,69 Ind. L.J.759 (1994).
18. Thomas B. McAffee, The Bill of Rights, Social Contract Theory, and the Rights Retained by the People,16 S. ILL. U. L. J.267 (1992).
19. Michael S. Moore, Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution? 63 S. Cal. L. Rev.107 (1989).
20. Thomas B. McAffee, The Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment,90 Colum. L.Rev.1215 (1990).
21. William O. Bertelsman, The Ninth Amendment and Due Process of Law—Toward a Viable Theory of Unenumerated Rights,37 U. Cin. L. Rev.777 (1968).
22. Laurence H. Tribe, Contrasting Constitutional Visions:Of Real and Unreal Differences,22 Harv. C. R.-C. L. L.Rev.95 (1987).
23. Michael W. McConnell, The Right to Die and the Jurisprudence of Tradition, 1997 Utah L. Rev.665 (1997).
24. Monroe, The Supreme Court and the Constitution,18 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev.737 (1924).
25. Michael W. McConnell, Textualism and the Dead Hand of the Past,66 Geo. Wash. L.Rev.1127 (1998).
26. Marsh, Historical Interpretation and the History of Criticism, in Literary Criticism and Historical Understanding(Columbia University Press, P. Damon ed.,1967).
27. Christopher J. Schmidt, Revitalizing the Quiet Ninth Amendment:Determining Unenumerated Rights and Eliminating Substantive Due Process,32 U. Balt. L. Rev.169 (Spring,2003).
28. Lawrence E. Mitchell, The Ninth Amendment and the "Jurisprudence of Original Intent",74 Geo. L. J.1719 (1986).
29. Jason S. Marks, Beyond Penumbras and Emanations:Fundamental Rights, the Spirit of the Revolution and the Ninth Amendment,5 Seton Hall Const. L. J.435 (1995).
30. Marc C. Niles, Ninth Amendment Adjudication:An Alternative to Substantive Due Process Analysis of Personal Autonomy Rights,48 UCLA L. Rev.85 (2000).
31. David M. Burke, The "Presumption of Constitutionality" Doctrine and the Rehnquist Court:A Lethal Combination for Individual Liberty,18 Harv. J. L.& Pub. Pol'y 73 (1994).
32. Akhil Reed Amar, Intratextualism,112 Harv. L. Rev.747 (1999).
33. Charles Black, On Reading and Using the Ninth Amendment, in Power and Policy in Quest of Law:Essays in Honor of Eugene Victor Rostow (M. McDougal & W. N. Reismaned.,1985).
34. Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy,4 Harv. L. Rev.193 (1890).
35. Raoul Berger, The Ninth Amendment,66 Colum. L. Rev.1(1994).
36. David N. Mayer, The Natural Rights Basis of the Ninth Amendment:A Reply to Professor McAffee,16 S.Ⅲ. U. L. J.313 (1992).
37. John Choon Yoo, Our Declaratory Ninth Amendment,42 Emory L. J.967 (1993).
38. Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev. 597 (February,2005).
39. Kurt T. Lash, The Lost Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment,83 Tex. L. Rev. 331 (2004).
40. Ken I. Kersch, Everything Is Enumerated:the Developmental Past and Future of an Interpretive Problem,8 U. Pa. J. Const. L.957 (September,2006).
41. Lawrence B. Solum, The Supreme Court in Bondage:Constitutional Stare Decisis, Legal Formalism, and the Future of Unenumerated Rights,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.155 (October,2006).
42. Mark Tushnet, Can You Watch Unenumerated Rights Drift?,9 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 209 (October,2006).
43. Andrew King, Comment, What the Supreme Court Isn't Saying About Federalism, the Ninth Amendment, and Medical Marijuana,59 Ark. L. Rev.755 (2006).
44. Jeffrey D. Jackson, The Modalities of the Ninth Amendment:Ways of Thinking about Unenumerated Rights Inspired by Philip Bobbitt's Constitutional Fate,75 Miss. L.J. 495 (Winter,2006).
45. Kyle Alexander Casazza, Inkblot:How the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause Protect Unenumerated Constitutional Rights, S. Calif. L. Rev.1383 (2007).
46. Robert W. Bennett, Interpretivism, http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/ eamc_03/eamc_03_01322.html#.阅读日期：2009年10月6日。
47. Associated Press,Study:More Know 'Simpsons' Than Constitution,Mar.1,2006, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186455,00.html.阅读日期：2010年3月15日。
1.薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版。
2.萧榕主编：《世界著名法典选编(宪法卷)》,中国民主法制出版社1997年版。
3.商务印书馆编译所编译：《世界现行宪法》,商务印书馆中华民国2年版。
4.国民政府立法院编译处编译出版：《各国宪法汇编》,中华民国22年版。
5.张芳杰主编：《牛津现代高级英汉双解词典》,商务印书馆1988年版。
6.范仲英编著：《实用翻译教程》,外语教学与研究出版社1994年版。
7.傅敬民等编著：《英汉翻译辨析》,中国对外翻译出版公司2005年版。
8.吕俊等编著：《英汉翻译教程》,上海外语教育出版社2001年版。
9.中国人民大学法律系编：《中外宪法选编》,人民出版社1982年版
10. Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary (West Publishing Co.,1999).