2016年3月1日
Scalia他老先生愛死《美國憲法》啦,心香虔敬,從不增字解經,步步以the Founding Fathers的意念為法度,自承是法先王的Originalist。那夜在薄扶林山上Scalia說一向恪守textualism,而Originalist頂關心的正是憲法文本的意義如何已在立憲時穩穩凝定,故Scalia的一派可算是Textual Originalism,跟晚近由耶魯Jack Balkin所領頭的Framework Originalism花蔓兩枝。Scalia在Texas v Johnson案中欣然接納國旗乃國人和國史的寶貴Symbol,但絕不屑於一邊倒的「You can honour it all you like, but you can't dishonour it as a sign of disrespect for the country」。如只許愛國之聲虛情擁抱而不許尋常百姓真心憤怒,那豈非正是the First Amendment期期不可的abridging the freedom of speech?結局是五比四,最高法院裁定Texas州政府的禁燒國旗法違憲,Scalia自是五票之一,絕不頑保。
那年一九九九,我們在終審法院為「吳恭劭案」辯護,自然也曾祭出Texas v Johnson以指出吳氏污毀國旗區旗亦屬symbolic speech,不容無理限制,可是最終敗下陣來,終審法院特地點出「Hong Kong is at the early stage of the new order」,因此維繫national unity和territorial integrity更形重要。噢!香港的月光跟亞美利堅的月光並不相同!十五年後人心不死,「古思堯、馬雲祺案」嘗試以十五年來的社會變遷好點出國旗區旗的symbolism已今非昔比,不應再來限制燒國旗這類symbolic speech,可是終審法院不為所動,在未有太多論證下,便逕斥之為unarguable!
當年有份判定吳恭劭敗訴的包致金大法官榮休後優游,去年寫了一卷Human Rights,述及「吳恭劭案」時,筆鋒頗帶感情:「The price while Ng Kung Siu's Case called upon people in Hong Kong to pay is a restriction on freedom of expression...Did people in HK get good value for the price...?」彷彿猶豫,莫非風雨過後,過來人尋尋覓覓,終也如Scalia般,在國旗與憲法之間,合該義無反顧?
訂戶登入