英文摘要 |
Constitutional adjudication is an application of the constitution by the exercise of judicial power. The content and validity of adjudication play a key role in clarifying the true meaning of the constitution and upholding constitutional order, which receive profound attention from researchers of constitutional theory and practice. However, analysis of the law has a significant influence on the investigation of the true meaning of the constitution and should be the very backbone of constitutional research. The author will conduct a meta-analysis on the modes of constitutional adjudication in terms of styles. This paper will explain the essence of the constitution based on a style-before-mode proposition. The inferential process, thereby, investigated the factors that shape styles and what kinds of special styles exist in constitutional adjudication. The author will initially explain the definition of styles and the formative factors of adjudication styles, which include systems, objects, foundations, modes of interpretations, and document formats. By expounding upon these influencing factors, the author infers that constitutional adjudication combines dogmatic and pragmatic styles, which differs from legal theories. The pragmatic style does not mean ignoring constitutional normative significance and capitulating to self-interest, but rather rationally integrating theoretical interpretation with actual events, which falls under the discovery of laws in the normative constitution. In other words, this style of constitutional adjudication is a special process of pragmatic reasoning. The most unique style is emphasized in the book titled “ontology-based Exploration and casuistry.” The author will cite an example from the first year of appointment of the chief justice approved by the Ninth Legislative Yuan at the time of writing, Interpretations No. 740-750, to discuss the forms and implications of legal views, and to corroborate the substance of style. |