1003課堂回應

    In the opinion of Paine's arch-rival, Edmund Burke, written ruling groups at the time they were promulgated (cited by Zurcher constitutions were no more than the political manifestos of the [1951: 1). Such disdain, however, did not prevent countries all over Europe adopting written constitutions during the nineteenth century. Burke's view, of course, was overstated, since a drafted constitution does not necessarily have to favor one party or another There are, nevertheless, intrinsic problems in the example of a "rigid" constitution that the American Founders gave the world (Bryce 1901, vol. I: 145-254; cf. Friedrich 1967). It was not that constitutions, once written down, could never be amended or replaced- the French managed to adopt a dozen between 1791 and 1875. The difficulty is that while neither a "rigid" nor any other sor of constitution will block the path of those determined to wrest power by violent means, it may nevertheless prevent law-abidine self-restrained reformers from carrying out policies that the electoral majority might have entrusted to them....（P.62)

     此段在以潘恩和柏克的治國方式和對憲法概念來做比對。潘恩重人權，在權利方面，認為人生而自由且平等的。因此，公民之間的分別只建立在公共利益上。(The Unity of Man)。政治目的都在於保護人的天賦的和不可侵犯的 權利，而這些權利是為生命、財產、自由。柏克反盧梭的虛無縹緲，反法國革命的個人主義思想。柏克是個保守主義者，也是一個典型的自由主義者，重視人道主義。是國家為一段不可抹滅的歷史，否定契約說的工具國家觀。反對普遍政治、革命，維護憲法，倡導政黨政治(自然貴族說)，將義務置於權利之上。

      在憲法和政體之中，潘恩主張制定成文憲法，才能存續國家的合法及價值，不同意孟德斯鳩的三權分立與制衡觀念。主張立法權(國會)應高於行政權和司法權並主張代議政治，因為最合乎自然秩序。但反對君權和貴族政體。認為所謂的君王，只不過是土匪，又建立出無意義的世襲制度。柏克則提倡君王世襲制度，支持自由放任的經濟市場。堅持反對政府依據抽象的理念進行統治、或是實行「全盤的」政治變動。