Should the constitution should stipulate civil obligation, the problem has been bothering me for two weeks. In preparing for the debate, I don't know "the constitution should stipulate civil obligation" to discuss the meaning of this topic, after reading the data and books, there are some clue, but these clues are scattered, without a system. The fierce debate in the classroom, I seem to have some understanding of this issue, at least not think this problem is of no significance. But the result is not brought me to this understanding on the qualitative leap, I still feel confused. I want to fully understand this question, in my current level is not enough, at least from the point of view of comparative law to explore this issue, I feel very weak. I don't know about other countries outside the Chinese constitution is how the provisions of the constitution, is China also cannot say very understanding. Since it is a topic of debate, there is no who to who wrong, can only say is a personal point of view, how to view has its rationality. Here I talk about my understanding of this problem is shallow!

   First of all, we all know, the constitution is the basic law, is the parent law. So as the basic law, he must be and other departments law differ. Between the Constitution and common law, the biggest difference is that the constitution is a guarantee rights law. This idea comes from sixteenth Century to develop the theory of social contract. In primitive society, human life in nature, the savage state, be free to use violence. With the increase of productivity, the country produced a. The country produces, make people volunteer to generate a social contract, the sword will be in the hands of the freedom to use violence delivered to the state, the fundamental rights and freedoms that can better guarantee for each person, but as a rational man is not his own life, liberty, property and other vital interests the right of transferring out, source of these rights is in terms of the constitution.

   Second, the constitution is the law. Public law to study the public power, the public power, public relations and public responsibility allocation as the main content. Public law obligation is the main state, is should specify what state, but not citizens. Public law is to restrict the government, and should not be applied to civil obligation.

   Third, in theory, the constitution is the parent law, is a higher law. That is to say, first of all, the constitution is the law, and common law has the same effectiveness; secondly the constitution as the higher law is different from the law department, in the Constitution also controls the meaning and interpretation of the common law, is a measure of legal or legislative acts of constitutional ruler, limiting level control law, with basic freedom full respect for the individual. So the constitution is not personal, so the provisions of civil rights should not be the constitution.

   Fourth, the Constitution does not specify the obligations of citizenship, someone may ask "the right of a citizen is not unlimited?" There, in constitution, citizens to exercise the rights of the individual, not against the state, the collective and the rights of others, that is to say, the constitutional rights and freedoms are not infinite, constitution may provide the restriction of civil rights, to achieve the balance of private right. For example, the citizens have the right to free speech, but if the infringement to the right of reputation of individuals, it may cause the libel. That is to say, a person in the exercise of the rights of the rights of others, but also to safeguard obligation. So the constitution should only provisions of civil rights, and in the conflicts between different constitutional rights, defining the scope of rights.

   Finally, the constitution is the parent law in theory, some people will say "no provisions citizen's obligation constitution, the law and what is the duty of citizens based on?" But in real life, the mother law status has been questioned. Investigate its reason, is mainly Chinese no constitutional government, there is China legal system is not perfect. As the Constitution stipulates that citizens have the obligation to pay taxes, but if not tax citizens, can only say that he violated the law or criminal law, but not that he violated the constitution. If someone for tax evasion, a situation is, he intentionally; another is to drill a loophole in the law, no basis in law, they can only resort to the higher law - the constitution. If the law is complete, there will be no appeal to a higher constitution this situation.

   To sum up, is the "constitution should not dictate a civic duty" the view of cognition, and also hope you correct me.