The constitution is the fundamental law of the country, with the highest efficiency of law. Countries now constitution not only has stipulated the basic right of the citizen, also provides the fundamental duties of citizens. Because of America constitution no provisions of the fundamental duties of citizens, and to be well implemented. Thus, with the development of society, the legal system, the constitution should stipulate civil obligations to be on the agenda, has become one of the focus of the times.

Different scholars on the provisions of the constitution the fundamental duties of citizens said there are wide differences of opinion, some people think that, the constitution is the law laws, legal provisions is to prevent excessive freedom of the citizens; constitution belongs to public law, directed against the government and so on; so should not the basic obligations stipulated citizen, fundamental duties of citizens the common law to the provisions. Also somebody thinks, the constitution is the parent law, provisions of the fundamental duties of citizens can be a common method as the direction, also restricted the ordinary method is not overly restrict the fundamental rights of citizens. As the saying goes: "words intentionally, no difficult words." Mean, said it was easy, not difficult; that is to say the Constitution can not stipulate civil obligation is very difficult. Here, I can obligations from the perspective of the constitution, to support the constitution should not or can not provide citizens with duty view, carries on the elaboration and the counter, on behalf of the personal opinions.

That the Constitution can not stipulated citizenship by many, but the mainstream view on the following four. First, from the constitutional nature, constitution belongs to public law, is the legal standard to restrict the government power, so do not stipulate the basic duties of citizens. In this regard, I have two questions. Since the constitution is the legal restriction of governmental power, why should involve the rights of citizens, economic, culture and other aspects? This is the first point. Second, the constitution is the constraints of the government rights not too as legal means that the constitution must not be prescribed the fundamental duties of citizens? Even if it is a!

Secondly, from the historical perspective, the constitution is the guarantee of citizens' basic rights in the form of, is to protect the rights of the people and social contract. The physics community thinks, the movement is absolute, static is relative, the world is a dynamic balance, strength in all aspects of the role to maintain this balance. The constitution is the same, is a dynamic equilibrium in the rights and obligations, under the interaction of government, citizens, once the basic duties of citizens in the constitution, it will be like the human destruction of the ecological balance lead to human survival is threatened, the civil rights expansion, the society into turbulent.

Furthermore, from the ultimate goal, the basic rights of constitution is committed to the protection of citizens, if the provisions of the basic obligations of citizenship is against the purpose of. Learned early in the junior high school, basic civil rights and obligations are complementary to each other, in the enjoyment of rights must also fulfill corresponding obligations. There is no absolute right in the world, only built on the basis of obligation right, therefore, the provisions of the constitution of the basic obligations of citizenship and the provision of basic rights are equally important.

Finally, the constitution is a "law", in which all the terms shall have the force of law, and the legal effect of constitutional lawsuit in China can only reflect. Since the constitution is to protect the rights of law, constitutional litigation should not be prosecuted for violating its obligations, so the constitution is not stipulated obligations of citizens. Here, I must emphasize, we discuss the constitution should stipulate civil obligation is established in our country is the basis of a rule of law, constitutional state, otherwise, all the discussions are meaningless. In the constitutionalism, rule of law country, will not violate the constitutional obligations not prosecuted cases.

In fact, the constitution, with the exception of a few countries such as American constitution does not stipulate civil obligations, the vast majority of the country's constitution more or less will provide the fundamental duties of citizens. In my opinion, there are some. The constitution is the parent law, the common law direction, point out the direction for the formulation of laws; although with the progress of society, a sound rule of law, the constitution cannot be prescribed to all sides, but I think, since the constitution is the fundamental law, the formulation and the ratification of the Constitution are more stringent, should do for all legal direction, provide a reference for the formulation of the common law. Therefore, the constitution of our country should keep pace with the times, continuous improvement and development, this is the first point. Second, the appropriate provisions of the fundamental duties of citizens in the constitution, not will not limit the freedom of citizens, but the specification. Third, constitutional provisions only in line with the majority of cases of interest is possible only through, is representative of the interests of the masses, and the common law is the constitution more easily through the, therefore, when the common law duty of citizens is the representative of the small number of people's interests, the common law will restrict most the freedom of the people, which violates the purpose of legislation. For example, when the society develops to a certain level, the society has 1/3 citizens have do boldly what is righteous moral quality, common law by this provision: "all citizens of the people's Republic of do boldly what is righteous duty", this provision is obviously limited by the 2/3 other people's freedom, and the provisions of the law should be a rational citizen can observe, then, then violate the purpose of legislation, but also because the Constitution does not provide a civic duty, no basic criteria are given, so in common law limits the freedom of citizens, but no higher than the ordinary law to restrain it, then how to do?

In summary, the constitution should be the mother law of common law, become the common law direction, so the provision in the constitution, the appropriate amount of basic duty is necessary.