Is the U.S. Federal Government's "Interventions" in Educational Affairs Unconstitutional?
-
摘要: 美国联邦政府“干预”教育是否违宪?这是一个饱受争议的问题。虽然联邦宪法修正案第十条确立了教育权力属于“州或人民”的原则,但考察历史会发现,联邦政府不断以各种方式“干预”教育。表面看来,联邦政府“干预”教育之行动有着“因循传统”“国家安全”与“社会福利”“民主与正义”等依据;但实际上,联邦政府“干预”教育的行动更受到“实用主义哲学观”和“社会发展趋势与联邦政府权力整体性转变”等深层因素的影响。如果从“权力”概念的视角加以分析,依据“强制力”说,联邦政府教育权力扩张并未违宪,而依据“影响力”说,联邦政府“干预”教育则已“违宪”;但如果抛开“权力”概念自身模糊性质所导致的分歧,从更为接近问题核心的宪法原则精神维度考察,联邦政府“干预”教育的行动与宪法精神无违。Abstract: It is a more controversial issue that whether it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to "intervene in" educational affairs. Although the 10th amendment established the fundamental principle of education power belongs to "the states or the people", exploring through history, the Federal Government continually "intervene in" educational affairs in a variety way. On the surface, the action of the Federal Government "intervene in" educational affairs based on the reason of "tradition", "national security" and "social welfare", "democracy and justice", but in fact, it is influenced by "pragmatic philosophy", "trend of social development and the whole transition of the Federal Government's power". Analyzed from the perspective of the concept "Power", according to the theory of "force", the Federal Government hasn't violated the federal constitution, however, according to the theory of "influence", the Federal Government has violated the federal constitution; but if we ignore the divergence caused by the vaguely character of concept "Power", analyzed form the dimension of the core spirit of "check and balance", "education power belongs to the people" of the Constitution, the Federal Government "intervene in" educational affairs hasn't violated the spirit of the Constitution.
-
Key words:
- Education power /
- US federal government /
- Intervene /
- Unconstitutional
-
[1] [美]米尔顿·弗里德曼. 资本主义与自由[M]. 张瑞玉, 译. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1999, 4. [2] TOLLES F B, CREMIN L A. American Education: The Colonial Experience 1607-1783[M]. New York: Harper & Row. Publishers, Inc, 1970. [3] [美]劳伦斯A. 克雷明. 美国教育史——建国初期的历程(1783-1876)[M]. 洪成文, 丁邦平, 刘建永, 等译. 北京: 北京师范大学出版社, 2002. [4] 林玉体. 西洋教育史专题研究论文集[G]. 台北: 文景出版社, 1984. [5] [美]韦恩·厄本, 杰宁斯·瓦格纳. 美国教育: 一部历史档案[M]. 周晟, 谢爱磊, 译. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2009. [6] 陈学飞. 美国高等教育发展史[M]. 成都: 四川大学出版社, 1989. [7] MCPHERSON M S, WILSON J T. Academic Science, Higher Education, and the Federal Government, 1950-1983[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. [8] [美]亚历山大·里帕. 自由社会中的教育[M]. 於荣, 译. 合肥: 安徽教育出版社, 2010. [9] 滕大春. 美国教育史[M]. 北京: 人民教育出版社, 2001. [10] [美]麦克斯·J·斯基德摩, 马歇尔·卡特·特里普. 美国政府简介[M]. 北京: 中国经济出版社, 1993. [11] [美]詹姆斯·M. 伯恩斯, 等. 民治政府[M]. 陆震纶, 郑明哲, 等译. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 1996. [12] [美]理查德·D·范斯科德, 理查德·J·克拉夫特, 约翰·D·哈斯, 合著. 美国教育基础——社会展望[M]. 北京师范大学外国教育研究所, 译. 北京: 教育科学出版社, 1984. [13] [英]罗素. 权力论: 新社会分析[M]. 吴有三, 译. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2008. [14] [英]罗德里克·马丁. 权力社会学[M]. 丰子义、张宁, 译. 北京: 三联书店出版社, 1992. [15] [美]汉斯·摩根索. 国家间政治——权力斗争与和平[M]. 徐昕, 等译. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2006. [16] [英]安东尼·吉登斯. 民族-国家与暴力[M]. 胡宗泽、赵力涛, 译. 北京: 三联书店, 1998. [17] [英]弗里德里希·哈耶克. 自由宪章[M]. 杨玉生、冯兴元、陈茅, 译. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社. 1998: 195. [18] PUSEYNATHAN M. American Higher Education: 1945-1970[M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978: 111-112. [19] 谢文全. 比较教育行政[M]. 台北: 五南图书出版公司, 1996. [20] [美]梅里亚姆. 美国政治学说史[M]. 朱曾汶, 译. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1988. [21] [汉]郑玄, 著. [唐]孔颖达, 疏. 《礼记正义》[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 1999. [22] SHAVELSON R J, TOWNE L. Scientific Research in Education[M]. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2002. [23] [美]汉密尔顿, 杰伊, 麦迪逊, 等. 联邦党人文集[M]. 程逢如, 等译. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2010. [24] CUBBERLEY E P. Public Education in the United States[M]. Cambridge Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1947. [25] CHRISTOPHER J, DAVID R. The Academic Revolution[M]. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001. [26] JOHN S B, WILLS R. Higher Education in Transition—A History of American Colleges and Universities[M]. New Brunswick. Transaction Publishers, 1976. [27] 滕大春. 美国教育史[M]. 北京: 人民教育出版社, 2001.
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 362
- HTML全文浏览量: 162
- PDF下载量: 16
- 被引次数: 0