论人民法院的宪法理解——以劳动权的司法保护为视角-on the constitutional understanding of peoples courts - from the perspective of judicial protection of labor rights.docxVIP

论人民法院的宪法理解——以劳动权的司法保护为视角摘 要中国共产党第十八届四中全会审议通过《中共中央关于全面推进依法治国若干重大 问题的决定》，该决定强调要健全宪法实施和监督制度，完善全国人大及其常委会宪法 监督制度，健全宪法解释程序机制。我国宪法解释制度自确立以来一直处于“休眠”状 态，宪法解释机关未能直面现实中的宪法问题，现实的法与成文的法脱节无法相互调试， 这直接影响到我国宪法的健康发展。构建科学有效的机制将宪法问题反馈到宪法解释机 关成为当务之急。通过研究人民法院关于劳动权的相关判例发现，虽然我国宪法规定国家是公民劳动 权的唯一义务主体，但自 1982 年《宪法》实施以来法院的很多判例中，法官认为公民 宪法劳动权的义务主体不仅包括国家还包括私营企业和自然人雇主，宪法劳动关系应该 是“国家—公民—用人者”之间的关系。问题随之而来，宪法为何会这样规定；法官的 这种理解是否正当；法官是否能够做出这样的理解，如果法官能够并且做出了正当的理 解，这种理解如何推动我国宪法解释的发展？本文从这几个问题入手，探讨人民法院的 宪法理解以及使其与宪法解释相衔接的机制。本文通过结合实证分析、规范分析、比较分析等研究方法，充分挖掘宪法判例的合 宪性、合理性，提出法官并非在适用宪法而是理解宪法。试图在既有的宪法体制内为法 院寻求新的角色，促进宪法解释机制发展。构建由各级人民法院的宪法理解、全国人大 常委会的宪法解释组成，宪法理解服从宪法解释，宪法理解有机衔接宪法解释，以宪法 理解促进宪法解释的机制。关键字：人民法院；宪法理解；宪法解释；衔接机制 基金项目：本文是国家社会科学基金项目“民法的宪法维度与宪法的民法适用研究”（批准号：11CFX014）的阶段性成果。ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE PEOPLE’S COURTABSTRACTThe fourth plenary session of 18th CPC congress has deliberated and approved the resolution of comprehensively promote the rule of law. This resolution stressed the necessity of improving the constitutional implementation and supervision system, specifically the constitutional supervision system exercised by NPC and its standing committee. One of the most important solutions is to improve the procedural mechanism of constitutional explanation. These are no any single one interpretation of constitution in our legal interpretation. The problem is constitutional interpretative organ accepts constitutional disputes hardly. The constitutional interpretation system is sleeping. The reality law andcodified law cannot be divorced from each other，it has handicapped the healthy developmentof the constitution. That makes it a top priority; we must construct a mechanism that can establish a connection between constitutional interpretative organ and constitutional problem.Through the researching of large numbers of precedent on labor rights since 1982, we can come to the conclusion that nation is the only obligation subject of citizen’s constitutional labor rights, but the judge held that private