打字猴:1.70336914e+09
1703369140 [15] Holdsworth,4 ,208.
1703369141
1703369142 [16] Chrimes,pp. 122—123. 另可见J.B. Black,The Reign of Elizabeth,1558—1603 (2d ed. Oxford,Clarendon Press,1959),p. 206。
1703369143
1703369144 [17] John Neville Figgis,“Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century,”The Cambridge Modern History (Cambridge,1904),3 ,748;J.W. Allen,A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (New York,Barnes and Noble,1960),p. 262.
1703369145
1703369146 [18] Figgis,Divine Right ,p. 237.
1703369147
1703369148 [19] Figgis,Divine Right ,p. 258。见Allen,p. 386;Charles Howard McIlwain,ed.,The Political Works of James I (Cambridge,Harvard University Press,1918)。
1703369149
1703369150 [20] 引自Friedrich,pp. 15—16。
1703369151
1703369152 [21] Clark,p. 83.
1703369153
1703369154 [22] Plamer,Ⅰ ,461:“在1787年曾有人要求在全国许多地方恢复省三级会议。这是一项针对黎塞留和路易十四的反应,是一过于拖延了的反应。它要求使法国成为立宪君主制国家,不是英国式的立宪君主制,而是早已成为历史陈迹的法国式的立宪君主制。”
1703369155
1703369156 [23] 关于立宪趋势的概括,见Clark,pp. 86—87。另可见F.L. Carsten,Princes and Parliaments in Germany (Oxfoxd,Clarendon Press,1959),pp. 436—437以及Holdsworth,4 ,168—172。
1703369157
1703369158 [24] James I,“The Trew Law of Free Monarchies,”in McIlwain,ed.,Political Works ,p. 62.
1703369159
1703369160 [25] Figgis,Divine Right,p. 232.
1703369161
1703369162 [26] McIlwain,High Court ,pp. 93—96.楷体为原文所有。
1703369163
1703369164 [27] Corwin,p. 89.
1703369165
1703369166 [28] George H. Sabine,A History of Political Theory (rev. ed. New York,Holt,1950),p. 455.
1703369167
1703369168 [29] Pollard,pp. 31—33.拒绝主权概念对政治体制适应大部分现代化问题的方式将产生某些影响,关于这方面的透辟的讨论,见Don K. Price,The Scientific Estate (Cambridge,Harvard University Press,1965),passim but esp. pp. 45 ff.,58,75—78,165—167。
1703369169
1703369170 [30] Samuel H. Beer,“The Representation of Interests in British Government Historical Background,”American Political Science Review,51 (Sept.1957),64.
1703369171
1703369172 [31] Faith Thompson,A Short History of Parliament:1295—1642 (Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press,1953),p. 59。
1703369173
1703369174 [32]England of Elizabeth ,p. 306. 参见A.F. Pollard,The Evolution of Parliament (2d ed. rev. London,Longmans,Green,1926),p. 159。波拉德认为,在都铎王朝后期,国会开始向国家化转变。
1703369175
1703369176 [33] Beer,pp. 614—615.
1703369177
1703369178 [34] Herbert W. Horwill,The Usages of the American Constitution (London,Oxford University Press,1925),p. 169.
1703369179
1703369180 [35] Maurice Klain,“A New Look at the Constituencies:The Need for a Recount and a Reappraisal,”American Political Science Review,49 (Dec.1955),passim,but esp. 1111—1113. 1619年伦敦公司召集第一届弗吉尼亚议会时模仿了英国的惯例:“每一种植园两名议员……由当地居民自由选出。”
1703369181
1703369182 [36] Horwill,pp. 169—170. 相反的观点见一美国新闻记者的评论,该记者在报道1964年大选时写道:“英国议员并不惦记着他们的选区。他们甚至不住在选区内……选区一般被视作为伦敦的全国共识提供素材的政治工厂。一名美国议员每周或许会从选民那里收到1 500—2000封信,而一个英国议员通常只收到10封信。”Roderick MacLeish,New York Herald Tribune ,Oct.11,1964.
1703369183
1703369184 [37] McIlwain,High Court,p. xi.楷体为原文所有。
1703369185
1703369186 [38] Pollard,Parliament ,p. 257.
1703369187
1703369188 [39] Richard E. Neustadt,Presidential Power:The Politics of Leadership (New York,John Wiley,1960),p. 33. 楷体为原文所有。
1703369189
[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.70336914e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]