Discussion on article twelfth of the constitution of the understanding and associate professor Cheng Xiaoxia (three)

  • Created:
  • / Author: Aaron Lewis
Discussion on article twelfth of the constitution of the understanding and associate professor Cheng Xiaoxia (three votes)
[Han Qiang] to 2007-02-11 21:45:10 "[texting ]
 
Please associate professor Cheng Xiaoxia not to Article twelfth of the constitution interpret out of context (three rating)
Han Qiang
The Constitution stipulates that the twelfth:
Socialist public property is sacred and inviolate.
The state protects socialist public property. Any organization or individual is prohibited to use any means appropriation or damaging of state or collective property.
"What is the inviolability of the meaning of"? This is "any organization or individual by any means appropriation or damaging of state or collective property" these words both refined and accurate. So, how to understand?
We look at the legal spirit of constitution:
All power in the second people's Republic of China belongs to the people.
The National People's Congress and the local people's Congress is the highest organ of state power.
The people in accordance with the law, through various channels and in various forms, management of state affairs, manage economic and cultural undertakings, the management of social affairs.
According to article second of the constitution, we can know: people through the "National People's Congress and the local people's congresses" economic management "". According to Article twelfth of the constitution, without the approval of the people's congresses at all levels, government has no power to public assets, the government's management of public property, the only operator.
The key here is that the government is not approved by the people's Congress, there is no right of disposition? I think not, because the constitution reads; "to prohibit any organization or individual to use any means encroachment or state or collective property", "government" is not the "organization", "director". Not "person"? Conceptually, extension of "organization" concept than the "government", can be a variety of organizations, a form of government is the organization; similarly, extension of "individual" concept than the "director", can have a variety of personal, the director is a form of personal.
Formal logic is a compulsory course in law major. For the interpretation of the concept to the attention of the connotation and extension of it.
The ownership of the property belongs to all the people, the first is the people, not the government ownership enterprise owners, but the escrow! Not approved by the people's Congress no right of disposition!
The fact is, a lot of selling state owned assets supervision and administration of this major policy simply without the approval of the people's Congress or the Standing Committee of the NPC special discussion, no special resolution.
This is unthinkable in the modern market economy country, even though the British privatization, was approved by parliament, as the public property belongs to all citizens! This is not as a mere formality, but the legal procedure!
Now, we'll see, those who bought, one is MBO, since stocks! One is the "private", why should I put this corporation in quotes, because this is not the ordinary meaning of the Corporation, but contact with officials of the "private enterprises". Not just what enterprises can buy assets!
Here, collusion is second and third! MBO is second and the combination of the third!
The state-owned assets is not legally be sold!
We look at the associate professor Cheng Xiaoxia is how to explain the property law is not unconstitutional, in her two article, also referred to the article twelfth of the constitution, and not for the first time, is a word "socialist public property is sacred and inviolate," behind the "prohibited by any organization or individual by any means or damage of state or collective property," she is not continuous. Because these words from the logic, from the legal principle theory of law are binding the government and individual, not the approval of the people's Congress cannot dispose of public property, with a common words, the housekeeper must go through the consent of the owner. This is the spirit of constitutional jurisprudence!
We'll see how Cheng Xiaoxia is an associate professor of constitutional interpret out of context, she says:
The letter (that Mr Gong) properties and the government to the National People's Congress recognized in the relationship of power exercise is unclear. In accordance with the provisions of article second of the constitution, the National People's Congress and the local people's congresses at all levels are the people exercise state power "authority", but the office is not a permanent body, it is only a year at a "Congress", therefore, cannot "Daily" to use a specific power. ("" property law "can give us what" "Chinese reform" in 2007 second period)
This is the constitution interpret out of context, because the constitution:
National institutions, third of the people's Republic of China shall apply the principle of democratic centralism.
The National People's Congress and the local people's congresses at various levels are democratically elected, responsible to the people, subject to the supervision of the people.
The state administrative organs, judicial organs, procuratorial organs by the people's Congress, responsible to it, subject to its supervision.
The fifty-seventh National People's Congress of the people's Republic of China is the highest organ of state power. Its permanent body is the Standing Committee of the National People's congress.
The Standing Committee of the fifty-eighth National People's Congress and the National People's Congress exercises the legislative power of the state.
Very clear: people are the main body of the country, "the state administrative organs, judicial organs, procuratorial organs by the people's Congress, responsible to it, subject to its supervision." Permanent body is the Standing Committee of the National People's congress.
That is to say, associate professor Cheng Xiaoxia trying to avoid permanent body is the Standing Committee of the National People's congress. Without this permanent body excuse me? To have the Law Committee of the NPC Standing Committee? No law committee, the draft law on real right and how to develop? Associate professor Cheng Xiaoxia made no mention of "the National People's Congress is the highest organ of state power. Its permanent body is the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, "said" the National People's Congress and the local people's congresses at all levels are the people exercise state power 'organ', but the office is not a permanent body, it is held annually in the 'Congress', therefore, cannot' daily 'exercise of a specific power ", is this not the constitutional interpret out of context? It is this interpret out of context, associate professor Cheng Xiaoxia concludes as follows:
No matter how controversial "property law" (Draft) "," Chinese people and has no objection to the importance and necessity of the real right law "enacted. Indeed, the law due to not fully take into account the interests of all suffered criticism is a normal. But the problem is, many of our current debates did not set based on a unified logical premise and basic knowledge of law. This makes some arguments seem inappropriate.
The State adopts the economists put forward "MBO" (MBO) privatisation scheme. Although the privatization plan implemented by the government considered unfair factors greatly, but the reform program is legitimate. ("property law (Draft)" why not "unconstitutional" China reform in 2007 second)
Associate professor Cheng Xiaoxia said "although the privatization plan implemented by the government considered unfair factors greatly, but the reform program is legitimate." "Countries (specifically by the government for the people in charge of)" can directly participate in market transactions, which further demonstrates the "property law (Draft)" not unconstitutional.
We think, this argument is logically removed a necessary condition, not in accordance with the "law of sufficient reason". Because the transaction principle should be: traders as the owner or the owner authorized person. So, I would like to ask: the National People's Congress or the Standing Committee of National People's Congress in what time with special provisions authorized "privatization" implemented by the government?
Logic reasoning requirements cannot be the whole process of ambiguity, can not change the conditions at random, associate professor Cheng Xiaoxia to "the National People's Congress is the highest organ of state power. Its permanent body is the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress "this necessary condition is discussed, also in violation of the law of sufficient reason. This argument in logic called sophistry, that is to say by sophistry argument "despite privatization plan implemented by the government considered unfair factors greatly, but the reform program is legitimate," there is no convincing.
After professor Cheng Xiaoxia's argument, one can only conclude, sophistry is wrong, not by the National People's Congress and the Standing Committee of National People's Congress for approval of special "privatization" is a violation of the legal spirit of the constitution, the relevant provisions of the property law is not unconstitutional further inference is not established.
If you only like that several property law experts generally said that "the draft of property law is not unconstitutional", people also have mixed feeling, by associate professor Cheng Xiaoxia this is a macro on theory, but let people ignore what someone wants to use the law to serve a purpose: to MBO legalization!
We can say, "Chinese reform" in 2007 second editor associate professor at Cheng Xiaoxia University of political science and law, the front and the article by itself, is for those of real right law experts helped, but Mr Gong provides new evidence, he would say, that the relevant provisions of the property law is not is sophistry. Perhaps this is the associate professor Cheng Xiaoxia the most wonderful! Let the people see the truth!
Http://bbs.people.com.cn/postDetail.do? View=1&id=1540276&bid=2