【摘要】 2019年2月的Timbs案是对美国宪法司法适用之吸收原理的局部挑战。联邦最高法院认为,宪法第八修正案不得处以过重罚金条款,因其关乎秩序自由体制的基础、植根于美国历史和传统而被宪法第十四修正案正当程序条款吸收,从而适用于州;印第安纳州最高法院关于州民事没收诉讼不适用罚金条款的判断不能成立,先例已然判明,罚金的惩罚性质不因民事没收或刑事没收而有差异。就吸收媒介或路径而言,以第十四修正案特权或豁免权条款进行吸收,还是用正当程序条款吸收,值得探讨,前者需要克服宪法规范层面的障碍和先例约束的惯例,后者的缺陷在于罚金条款自身的程序色彩并不明显,更符合实体权利的特征。吸收原理被挑战的实质,不仅在于吸收的方式、内容以及途径、范围,更在于联邦最高法院通过吸收实现宪法修正案司法效力整合行为本身的合宪性,直接关涉司法审查技术的边界。这是一个有争议的话题,如司法审查制度一般经典,一直被质疑,从未有定论,亦从未因此而失去意义。更多还原

【Abstract】 The Timbs case in February 2019 is a partial challenge to the incorporation doctrine in the judicial application of American constitutional law.The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America provides that excessive fines should not be imposed,which also applies to states,because it is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution,due to the fact that the Excessive Fines Clause is related to the foundation of the system of ordered liberty,and rooted in American history and traditions.The judgment of the Indiana Supreme Court that the Excessive Fines Clause does not apply to the state’s civil in rem forfeitures cannot be established,as the precedent has already determined that the penalty nature of the fine is not different between civil forfeitures and criminal forfeitures.In terms of the incorporation medium or path,whether it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment Privilege or Immunity Clause,or by the Due Process Clause,is worth discussing.The former needs to overcome the obstacles of the constitutional norm and the precedent-constrained convention.The latter’s defects are that the significance of the procedure in the Excessive Fines Clause itself is not obvious,and it is more in line with the characteristics of the substantive right.The essence of the challenge to the incorporation doctrine is not just the approach,content,path,or scope of the incorporation,but more of the constitutionality of how the Supreme Court consolidates judicial effectiveness of the constitutional amendments through incorporation,as it is directly related to the boundary of judicial review technique.This is a controversial topic,just as classic as the topic of judicial review.While it has always been questioned but never finalized,discussion on this topic has never lost its meaning.更多还原