USA constitutional protection of Chinese?

Author:Newton2010-08-1410:20:41Released in:Blog ChineseClassification:The default classification

Before we began this, please readers read the following passage.

In our system, although sovereign was commissioned by government agencies, but it remains essentially belongs to the people. Only to the interests of the people and by the people's government authorization, existence and action.

The law is defined and limited power.

Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the basic rights of the people, should be subject to constitutional norms of security. The government of the Republic of China is the rule of law-And not of men-The government!...... The law itself may be on the surface of impartial, but if it is not fair to use public power, in fact the discrimination of individual rights, the constitution must be to ban on deprived of equal justice--Even if the deprivation is "law" in the name of!.

This is not the prose is not poetry, this text is from a verdict American Federal Supreme Court justice Mathews made more than a hundred years ago. I prepared this passage, not simply in order to see the beauty of it, is not only to feel the human feelings, because it extracts, protected by a judgment for the plaintiff is living in San Francisco, be forced to leave one's hometown of chinese!

For a long time, publicity and education we always around a theme, that is, hostile to the west! In order to carry out the theme, edited by fragments of history, integration. Where is beneficial to the understanding of Western truth, can seal is sealed, not a skip, such as USA government has firmly opposed to scramble for Chinese, against the powers of a series of unequal treaties to the fact, for example, during the war of resistance against Japan American forces on China selfless help and devotion, such as justice Mathews of the sentence, all covered. But, where is beneficial to the threat, continue to show, repeated and amplified, such as "Chinese and dogs not allowed", "down with U. S. imperialism". Gradually, "Americans are bad people" idea has been firmly fixed in Chinese heart.

By the age of seventy, Nixon's visit to China, since the establishment of diplomatic relations. Continue to promote hatred apparently be inopportune or inappropriate. So, the propaganda policy adjustment as the "sympathy for its people, against the government". I believe every Chinese remember this sentence: "USA people still living in poverty!" It is the product propaganda work "the times". People living USA hard ah, suffering is America policy! -- this is the essentials. Now because of age and experience, for such propaganda is not the solution, only with hatred, does not understand the other, do not understand the gist of the "sympathy for the people, against the government", and wonder: since Americans are not what good bird, they live in misery, is it not deserve one's punishment? And we have to do? He seems to still feel funny.

The reform and opening up and the age of the Internet, the amount of information we contact the rapid expansion, the good and the bad one, then to filter, filtering, countless Chinese therefore learn to think. I think, if today there are people who declared that "USA people still live in misery", we must call him an idiot (around me really exist, such person is a prosecutor, bachelor degree.).

Of course, in this view, for American attitude, we should not "against the government", more and more people seem to have adjusted to the envy of the people ", the government of sympathy". Thinking is, even if the return to the more than one hundred years ago, "what the opposition to the government" attitude Is it right? Correctly, Is it right? Reasonable? After reading this case and the conclusion.

More than a hundred years ago,1880Years, the Chinese monopoly laundry industry city of San francisco,300Much home laundry, Chinese owned97%. San Francisco white heart to break the Chinese monopoly of the industry, but not directly to the law forbidding Chinese to enter this industry. They had a lot of brain, finally "A stratagem comes to mind". They found that, Chinese run laundry for the wooden structure, there are some fire protection and health hazard. So, the authorities in San Francisco1880Years passed a law, regulation: the laundry shop in wood structure buildings in the city in, must be approved by the authorities to review qualified, and obtain a business license before operating. The reason is very proper, very highfalutin. The statute also provides that: refuse to obey will be fine1000The dollar, or the length of not more than6Months in prison, or two fine.

Due to the lack of supporting laws and regulations issued the business license of the standard of review, the discretionary power to the municipal authorities, it can arbitrarily according to the official own judgement, decide to accept or reject the application. Result.80Non Chinese applicants got business license,200In Chinese for the same condition are shut sb. Which is a partly because of fire and health risks, but more is the discrimination.

Then, come one after another,150Chinese for refusing to pay the fine in custody.

This system is called the market access, all have. In today's Chinese, if the government to establish the licensing to restrict some people right into the market, we can be solved through administrative litigation. But at the time of the America, all this is a blank, can only give weak with relief, the Constitution and the interpretation of the constitution of conscience!

A Chinese representative as the plaintiff filed a lawsuit, asked the California Supreme Court overturned the local authorities decided to, and issued a release order.

The judge's conscience to torture American moment!

California's Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's application. So, the case to the Supreme court.

The authorities in San Francisco is according to the "law" to act, to solve the case, we must review the San Francisco "law" is contrary to the constitution of American. This will inevitably face a problem: Chinese labor is not American citizen, whether they enjoy the protection America constitution?

The justices of the Supreme Court review1880Provisions the Qing government and the America treaty, the Treaty: "if a permanent or temporary residence in the United States on the territory of the Chinese labor by any other person abuse, the United States should strain every nerve to protect them, and ensure that they enjoy the rights, privileges and immunities similar and most favored nation citizen." Based on the above reasons, the Supreme Court held that the,The protection USA constitution is not limited to the Americans, anyone should be applied to the America territory.

Mathews then wrote the verdict:

Law enforcement officials rejected the plaintiff and 200 in Chinese for the same condition, but agreed to 80 other non Chinese applicants to apply the same occupation under similar conditions,--Laws against hostile races and nationalities, discrimination is unconstitutional....... For the plaintiff is illegal, they must be released!

San Francisco Chinese victory! In addition to the San Francisco Chinese? It is in fact the Chinese victory! It is more than a Chinese victory? It is simply a human victory! According to the information, this is a judgment in more than half a century later, "has become the20A major cornerstone century American the equal protection of the laws "(Ren Dong Lai language, from the network), is to discuss the constitution of" equal protection "clause cited a case -- the largest so far have been cited125Time (data from the network).

Since I know the earth that day is "American" the national existence, my feelings for America had fixed -- it is a heartfelt hatred. When the textbook said "USA people still live in misery", I always silly to think: suffering is what kind of situation? Do not get enough to eat, wear not warm? The workers working in the whip? Or is it...... , I start their own rich imagination as much as possible, but always not to. When I read the case, to understand America court how committed to protect the weak, I think, I know the truth.