主题：冷眼看占中 -- 种植园土
The Great Wallets of China: Think YOU like a splurge at the shops? You’ve nothing on the Chinese bling addicts spending 500m here in one mindboggling week of excess
China is the number one international market to visit Westfield London
George Osborne announced the UK would fund 25,000 tourist visas
This year is London’s busiest Golden Week ever
More than 200,000 Chinese people are estimated to visit
......
英国佬肯定打心眼里支持“继续占中”，行动上嘛，抛出25000 tourist visas别和钱过不去。
黄之锋背后的班子还是比较有水平的。
问题是香港成了培养这种人的土壤，以反中反共为荣，这就危险了。
有人养寇自重，现在成了养虎为患，不及时治理，将来必酿成大祸。
23条立法和国教事件，不是反共的问题，而是反中，有人以民主的伪装，行反中之实，要挑起民族仇恨来给自己谋利。
我觉得，中共那时候已经看清了这些人的本质，这次占中，是在没有捅破这层纸的前提下，给对方一个教训。玩民族仇恨，那就一起玩，让你们看看后果。
毕竟是军事法庭干的事。只是拿它说明宪法的作用和影响。即便今天，联邦法律中叛国罪仍需要证明"overt act"这个要素--这些法律是根据宪法制定的。
苍月枫比你靠谱，呵呵，玩笑下。
这些米6重型直升机是70年代初，珍宝岛事件发生之后，苏联东西两线都是敌人，压力巨大（不要以为只有中国压力大）。为了缓和与中国关系，提供给中国一队急需的重型直升机。
此事前后，中国矜持但频繁地暗示美帝来勾搭，一会斯诺登上天安门，一会乒乓外交，美国人反应迟钝，直到基辛格秘密访华才整明白。但这不妨碍中国收了苏联的直升机。
这事似乎没有光彩到需要大肆宣传的程度。直到十几年后这些飞机摔的摔，退役的退役，才逐渐出现在民间和博物馆。网上暴光就更晚了。
园土兄哪里看的新闻？我在苏格兰没听说这回事。他准备交棒是知道的。虽然公投失败，苏独党党员登记数反而大涨，萨尔蒙德可谓虽败犹荣，正好激流勇退。此人是个老狐狸，应该不会干授人以柄的蠢事。公投前后NHS预算超支那件事很像是有人特意放出来打击苏独党的，但还是属于政策层面，应该不至于牵扯到贪腐上。
Alex Salmond’s closest aide was urged to resign last night as she faced two investigations for using public money to hire her lover’s wife.
苍月枫的观点是“个人行为不可能违反美国宪法”。这个观点，学术上叫做State Action Doctrine,也就是宪法只针对公权力行为救济，不针对私人行为，无论私人行为多么恶劣、严重。在99.99%的情况下，这个观点是对的，但至少有一个例外--即美国宪法第十三修正案，即废除奴隶制部分，私人是可以触犯的。而且这个例外是美国宪法学者的共识。具体论文很多。下面就是一个。
Ryan D. Walters
Independent
March 19, 2013
George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (CRLJ), Vol. 23, No. 3, 2013
Abstract:
In 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery in the United States. There is an overwhelming consensus that the Thirteenth Amendment represents an exception to the state action doctrine – the general rule that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to private actors. There has never been an analysis of this assertion using reasonable observer originalism. As a result, the consensus view on the Thirteenth Amendment threatens to undermine a key feature of the Constitution – that it provides rules of conduct solely for governmental actors.
This Article uses reasonable observer originalism to examine the text and context of the Thirteenth Amendment. This is the first analysis that finds that Section One of the Thirteenth Amendment is not the aberration that most have claimed; it is consistent with the state action doctrine and only applies to governmental actors. However, Section Two allows Congress to act on private individuals when a state has refused to enforce its generally applicable laws protecting bodily integrity and freedom from restraint. Both aspects of this analysis demonstrate how the case law that has arisen from the Thirteenth Amendment is in harmony with the revised view set forth in this Article, and that the constitutional ban of slavery is properly understood as an anti-caste provision prohibiting discriminatory governmental exemptions from laws protecting persons from physical force.
Part I of this Article describes the consensus view that the Thirteenth Amendment is an exception to the generally accepted maxim that the U.S. Constitution applies solely to governmental actors. Examining constitutional context and using the techniques of intratextualism, Part II explains the flaws in the reasoning advanced in support of the consensus view. Part III describes how the original meaning of the term “slavery” denoted a legal institution created and maintained by state action. Similarly, Part IV describes how the original meaning of “involuntary servitude” is consistent with a state-centered view of the institution. Part V analyzes how the relationship between the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment reinforces the plausibility of the state-action interpretation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Part VI then describes how Section Two of the Thirteenth Amendment permits Congress to reach private conduct, even though Section One only directly reaches state conduct, and how this interpretation makes sense of the existing case law regarding the scope of the Thirteenth Amendment.
为了防止误解，我又回头看了苍月枫和你的讨论，还是坚持原来的意见。原因如下：
你和苍的讨论是否可以总结为
苍提出个人怎么可能触犯美国宪法，你回帖举了美国宪法中treason的表述，同时又提及英国普通法对treason的刑罚;
苍指出美国宪法违法的主体不可能是个人，并断言 "总之，我不知道有一个案例是有个人被判违宪的（Violation of Constitution)"，你没有正面回答，而是提出 “但不是说宪法不能拿来定罪,虽然没有无争议的案例表明如此” 并又提出最接近的适用宪法定罪的案例，同时指出判词里出现了在美国宪法中出现的High crimes and misdemeanors 和overt act，来证明所谓“最接近”。
苍接着指出可能用词不当，和该案被推翻的事实；你依然没有正面回答，还说这个案子不算是判例。
我来说说我看美剧的心得吧，treason 不是由美国宪法而生，本身就是普通法里的普通罪名，美国法官有大把的案例可以follow同裁判treason，似乎不需要采用宪法吧； “但不是说宪法不能拿来定罪,虽然没有无争议的案例表明如此” 你的这句话是自己否定自己么？至于出现了High crimes and misdemeanors 和overt act这么几个词语，就跟宪法挂上钩，是不是有点牵强？；我是同意苍的说法，美国宪法是用作盾牌多过用作剑的，适用上多是judicial review而不是去作prosecution.这些都是表面上，逻辑上的感觉，然后得出苍在对法律的理解和掌握比你强，不算过分吧。当然，我要检讨乱开玩笑的行为，以后不再跟你帖子了。
不过已经离本题越来越远了，就此打住。大家心平气和，关注重点吧:)
你想要立法权，口袋里有本土居民社工乡绅么？你想要司法权，口袋里有熟练掌握英美法系熟悉香港社情的法官么？再说，您以为TG真的掌握着香港行政权？还是您有能力在香港设个政法委？
别的不论，驻军绝对不松口。邓矮子可比您懂国际游戏规则多了。
何况战略利益交换要对等，太祖要的老毛子根本给不了。
再说这玩意肯定不是送的。
中国从来都不亏欠老毛子。