TA的每日心情 | 慵懒
2020-7-26 05:11 |
|---|
签到天数: 1017 天 [LV.10]大乘
|
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 这个案子本身并不是很重要，它在美国法律史上的名气，来自最高法院法官Robert Jackson那段让人荡气回肠的判决意见。我对Jackson的那段判决意见也很喜欢，顺便就介绍一下这个案子。
耶和华见证人（Jehovah’s Witnesses）是美国的一个基督教教派。这个教派的一些信仰在美国主流看来很有些古怪，比如禁止输血，禁止教徒过圣诞节，复活节和生日，禁止教徒服兵役，遭到很多敌视，很深的偏见。他们还禁止向任何旗帜包括美国国旗敬礼、效忠宣誓（pledge of allegiance），禁止唱美国国歌。在这一点上，同美国的主流社会发生了严重的冲突。
效忠宣誓出现于 1892年，誓词的内容是
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
一战美国参战后，爱国热情特别高涨，好多州规定公立学校的学生必须对美国国旗敬礼并效忠宣誓。1935年耶和华见证人的领袖J. F. Rutherford发表声明，认为美国国旗是个世俗的符号，对它敬礼并效忠违反了圣经，是对上帝的不忠实。随后不少见证人信徒的孩子拒绝在学校里向国旗敬礼，被学校开除。许多老师也因为是见证人信徒遭到了同样的命运。教会决定起来捍卫自己的权利。
Walter Gobitas加入耶和华见证人时间并不长，住在Minersville, Pennsylvania，邻居基本上都是天主教徒。他的女儿Lillian学习很好，还被选为班长。但是因为效忠宣誓的争议，丢了班长的位置，上学路上被同学扔石块，最终被学校开除。Gobitas把她转到一所私立学校，但是学费要高很多。1938年2月他将Minersvile的school board告上法庭。案子最后打到最高法院。1940年最高法院以8比1判决要求学生必须向美国国旗敬礼的法律不违宪。判决意见是Frank Frankfurter写的。理由是培养学生的爱国主义是学校的职责之一，为达到忠于国家团结一心的目的，学校要求学生对国旗敬礼宣誓是合适的。
最高法院的这个判决做出不久，潜存的对耶和华见证人的敌视和不宽容马上就爆发出来，在Kennebunkport, Maine，2500个暴徒烧毁了耶和华见证人的教堂。在Litchfield, Illinois，警察关押了60个见证人信徒，理由是为了保护他们。在Rawlins, Wyoming，5个见证人信徒遭到暴打。据ACLU统计，美国全国共有1500多见证人信徒遭到肉体上的攻击。这些暴力反应改变了最高法院对这个问题的看法。不到3年就180度大转弯，改为支持耶和华见证人的言论自由和宗教自由。
这个新的案子来自西弗吉尼亚，那儿的州议会跟随全国的浪潮，也通过了要求学生对国旗敬礼效忠的法律。拒绝敬礼的学生会被开除，家长可以在监狱里被关30天。Barnette一家是耶和华见证人信徒，拒绝违背他们的信仰服从这一法律，就告到法庭。官司最终打到最高法院，令人惊讶的是，最高法院以6比3改变3年前的决定，判决这一法律违反第一宪法修正案。
最高法院的判决出自法官Robert Jackson之手。他的决定认为拒绝对国旗宣誓同样是表达个人思想的一种言论，同样受第一宪法修正案保护，他们拒绝敬礼的行为并没有妨碍其他人，州政府无权进行强制。后来焚烧美国国旗的行为也是根据相同的原则判决受言论自由保护。Frankfurter此前的意见认为为了建立国民的团结向心力，强制对国旗敬礼的措施可以被允许。而Jackson则举罗马帝国镇压基督徒，西班牙宗教审判，苏联处决流放持异见者的例子，来说明用强制措施来铲除不同意见，来达成国家的unanimous sentiment最终都会遭到失败。（引文的重点是我加的。）
Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, but, at other times and places, the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
Frankfurter的意见认为反对这一法律的人应该通过投票站而不是法院来试图改变政策，Jackson指出这其实就是多数人的暴政。
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
意见的结尾一般被认为是美国最高法院历史上判决意见中最雄辩的一段
It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.
The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure, but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.
|
评分
-
查看全部评分
|
雷达卡
发表于 2014-6-3 17:54:52
收藏
分享
淘帖
支持
反对
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2014-6-3 20:52:59
发表于 2014-6-3 22:04:56