扁採大膽路線凍結現行憲法

看板media-chaos作者rodneytw (桂圓紅棗茶)時間17年前 (2006/11/03 11:05)推噓9(9推 0噓 4→)

留言13則, 11人參與討論串1/8 (看更多)

※ [本文轉錄自 KMT 看板] 作者: rodneytw (桂圓紅棗茶) 站內: KMT 標題: 扁採大膽路線凍結現行憲法時間: Fri Nov 3 11:04:56 2006 這是今天中國時報的重要新聞，因為要講一些事情，不引述全文，只有連結。（1）中國時報於2006.11.03 刊出以下新聞 1.扁採大膽路線凍結現行憲法 http://0rz.tw/b321X 文中開宗明義表示，阿扁說台灣可以凍結線有憲法、並通過一部新憲法。 2.美：請他看看自己六月八日承諾 http://0rz.tw/3d20J 駐美記者劉屏立刻用美國「某要求匿名官員」為主角，指責陳水扁不要失信於美國。 3.選前推新憲扁急於自保 http://0rz.tw/a022f 記者特稿，說府內一直開會討論凍結憲法，此舉是因陳水扁自己感到國務費偵結壓力，要用制憲案綁住獨派。 4.世代論壇周奕成：破壞台灣國家利益 http://0rz.tw/6b23t 緊接著，再引述民進黨學運世代要角之一的話，指責此舉破壞國家利益。（2）以下是聯合報今天刊出相關新聞 1.英媒專訪扁又提凍結憲法、推動新憲 http://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NAT1/3586864.shtml 內容與中時大同小異，表示陳水扁可能凍結憲法，從技術上繞過四不。此外，引述美國國務院官員重申不支持台獨立場。 3.美國務院重申嚴肅看待扁的憲改承諾 http://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NAT1/3586898.shtml 美國繼續對陳水扁聽其言觀其行，考驗其「領導能力、可信賴度以及政治家風範的考驗。」 3.藍指模糊焦點施批犯內亂罪 http://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NAT1/3586867.shtml 引述國民黨、施明德、周奕成說法，營造國內沒有人贊成凍結憲法氣氛。（3）以下是自由時報今天刊出相關新聞沒有，沒提到這件事。（4）以下是蘋果日報今天刊出相關新聞抱歉，我連不上蘋果網站。總而言之，兩大質報都用肯定的語氣說，陳水扁表示可能、或可以凍結憲法、制訂新憲。再用過內外的新聞明示暗示此舉不可能獲得支持。但陳水扁究竟講了什麼？以下是英國金融時報刊登內容。文長，僅引述凍結憲法部分。 Interview transcript: Chen Shui-bian Published: November 2 2006 10:15 | Last updated: November 2 2006 10:15 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b8af3b80-6a53-11db-8ae5-0000779e2340.html FT: We observe that you have started to discuss some of the possible contents of a new constitution, including the definition of the “existing national boundaries” and the concept of a “Second Republic” constitution. Will you get even deeper involved in the discussion of the constitutional contents? So far you have only raised the question of whether these two things should be discussed. Will you start giving some answers and reveal your views on these issues? 問：我們觀察到您開始討論一些新憲層面的問題，包含界定「固有之疆域」、第二共和等。目前您只帶起這兩個問題，您會進一步介入嗎？您會提出您的答案、表示您的觀點嗎？ Chen: The DPP’s party platform that was passed on October 7, 1990 mentions: Our country’s de-facto sovereignty does not extend to mainland China and outer Mongolia. The future constitutional system and domestic as well as foreign policies should be based on this factual territorial scope. So no matter if factual sovereignty or factual territory, we have already said in very clear terms that these do not include mainland China and outer Mongolia. 民進黨於1990.10.07提出決議案，指出「我國（台灣）主權事實上不及於中國大陸與外蒙古。我國未來憲政體制及內政、外交政策，應建立在事實領土範圍之上」。因此，我們早已表明，台灣領土、主權不包含中國大陸、外蒙。 But according to the existing constitution, the country’s territory is defined with reference to “the existing national boundaries”. But what are the existing national boundaries? 但在現行憲法中，領土以「固有之疆域」加以界定。但什麼是「固有之疆域」？ We first thought that we could solve this through a constitutional interpretation, that means to solve it by having the constitutional court deliver a constitutional interpretation rather by amending the constitution. But what we didn’t know is that on March 28, 1993, the Constitutional Court had already ruled saying the definition of the scope of the “existing national boundaries” is a major political question and should not be explained by the highest judicial body in its capacity of interpreting the constitution. 我們原先以為可以透過釋憲解決，亦即由大法官釋憲、而非藉由修憲。但1993.03.28 大法官會議解釋「固有之疆域為重大政治問題，司法院無法解釋」。 Therefore our thought of going through the judiciary in order to avoid constitutional amendments cannot be realised. 因此，透過司法體系、以避免修憲是無法實現的。 But the problem is what [are] the existing national boundaries? Does it really include mainland China and outer Mongolia? Mainland China is currently the territory of the People’s Republic of China, and outer Mongolia is another country named Republic of Mongolia. Both are UN members. If we say our existing national boundaries extend to the territory of these two countries, wouldn’t that mean to encroach on UN members’ territory and sovereignty? This is very absurd and unrealistic. The international community would of course not accept such a thing. 問題在於什麼是「固有之疆域」。它真的包含中國大陸、外蒙？大陸現在是中華人民共和國領土、外蒙現已是蒙古人民共和國，兩者都是聯合國會員國。如果我們主張固有之疆域包含上述地方，這不就代表侵犯聯合國會員的領土、主權？這是很荒謬、不符現實的。國際社會不會接受。 Further, do the “existing national boundaries” include Taiwan? This is also very controversial. Very clearly, the Republic of China constitution says the country’s name is Republic of China, it was founded in 1912. But Taiwan became a Japanese colony as early as 1895. So when the ROC was established, it did not include Taiwan. 固有之疆域是否包含台灣？這是有相當爭議的。中華民國創立於1912年，但台灣早於 1895年割讓日本，因此中華民國立國時，不包含台灣。 The “existing national boundaries” at the time the predecessor of the ROC constitution, a 1936 draft, was put together, did not include Taiwan either because Taiwan was still ruled by Japan. After the war, the San Francisco Treaty did not give Taiwan to China. So that the ROC’s “existing national boundaries” do not include Taiwan is very clear. So do we want to solve this problem? It is not in line with reality and is so controversial. 五五憲草中的領土不包含台灣，因台灣尚在日本統治之下，而舊金山和約未將台灣歸還中國。因此中華民國固有疆域不包含台灣至為明顯。要解決這個問題嗎？它們與現實不符、也有爭議。 So this is a very serious issue. From the DPP’s 1990 platform until recently, many people are discussing the scope of our territory and our sovereignty. This is extremely serious, complicated, sensitive, but also extremely important. 因此，這是個非常嚴肅的議題。從90年民進黨迄今，許多人討論我們的領土、主權範圍。這很嚴肅、很複雜、但也極為重要。 So then somebody has proposed the concept of the “Second Republic”. Actually, the Second Republic means the current constitution would be frozen and a new Taiwan constitution would be written. Freezing the ROC constitution also means keeping some kind of a link to the ROC constitution and not cutting it off completely. 所以有人提出「第二共和」概念。事實上，第二共和代表現行憲法可能會被凍結、而新的台灣憲法可能被制訂。凍結中華民國憲法同時意味著與其維持某種程度上的關連、而非全然劃清界限。 This is a very interesting idea. It deserves observation, and everyone can discuss it. That is why some people say that the Second Republic constitution ’s preamble should define the territorial scope this constitution applies to, whether it includes mainland China or Mongolia, or whether is it limited to the existing territorial and sovereignty scope of Taiwan, [and its outlying islands]. 這是很有趣的想法，它值得觀察，任何人都可以討論。這也是為什麼有人說第二共和憲法序言中得界定這部憲法適用的領土範圍，是否包含中國大陸、外蒙古，或只包含台灣現在統治的區域，以及外島。 Also the General Provisions of the existing constitution, including article 4 with its “existing national boundaries” are not to be touched, but address the issue in the Second Republic Taiwan constitution where it talks about its application scope. Would that work and be acceptable to everyone? I think that ’s a very interesting thought. 現行憲法總綱、包含第四條「固有之疆域」是碰不得的，引出台灣第二共和憲法描述其適用範圍的問題，但這是否人人都接受，我認為這是個相當有趣的想法。以上是陳水扁於專訪中說的話。關於兩大質報所謂的「陳水扁可能凍結憲法」一式，由金融時報刊登的訪談原文來看，陳水扁係著力於回應記者提出的新憲、領土問題，指出在民進黨觀念中的「固有疆域」有多不合理、多悖離現實。至於「凍結憲法」。從原文中可以清楚發現，這是陳水扁對於「第二共和憲法」若提出時，中華民國憲法「可能遭遇」的處境提出自己的看法。陳水扁沒有說會凍結、也沒有說要凍結，只說這是個有趣的觀點，人人都可以討論。 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 210.64.101.117 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 210.64.101.117

推

aler

11/03 11:29, , 1^F

11/03 11:29, 1^F

推

chenhung

11/03 11:40, , 2^F

11/03 11:40, 2^F

※ 編輯: rodneytw 來自: 210.64.101.117 (11/03 11:43)

推

mariny

11/03 11:48, , 3^F