4. 컨스티투션에 관해
269 A constitution is not the 행동act(소산) of a government, but of a people 컨스티튜팅하는constituting(구성하는) a government; and government without a constitution, is power without a 올바룸right(권리)
271~272 In this constitution were laid down, 첫째로first(앞 부분에), a 올바룸들의 선포declaration of rights(권리선언); then followed the form which the government should have, and the powers it should 소유할possess(가져야할have)- the 권한authority of the courts of 재판judicature(사법), and of 재판인들juries(배심원)- the manner in which elections should be conducted, and the proportion of representatives to the number of electors- the time which each succeeding assembly should continue, which was one year- the mode of levying, and of accounting for the expenditure, of public money- of appointing public officers, etc., etc., etc.
272 Here we see a 정규적인regular(정상적인normal) process- a government issuing out of a constitution, 형태화한formed(형성한) by the people in their 기원적인original(본래) character; and that constitution serving, not only as an 권한authority(권위), but as a law of control to the 정부통치government(국가state). It was the political bible of the 국가state. Scarcely a family was without it. Every member of the government had a copy; and nothing was more common, when any 토론debate(논쟁argument) 일어서면arose(생기면) on the principle of a bill, or on the extent of any species of authority, than for the members to take the printed constitution out of their pocket, and read the chapter with which such 물질matter(사항) in debate was 연결된connected(관련된relavant).
274 there is no such thing as the 이념idea(개념concept, 관념conception) of a 협약compact(계약contract) between the people on one side, and the government on the other. The compact was that of the people with each other, to 생산하고produce(만들고make) and 컨스티튜트하고constitute(구성하는construct) a government. To suppose that any government can be a party in a compact with the 전일적인whole(전체) people, is to suppose it to have existence before it can have a right to 실존한다exist(존재한다be). The only instance in which a compact can take place between the people and those who 행사하는exercise(운영하는) the government, is, that the people shall pay them, while they choose to employ them.
277 In the two instances of changing the constitutions, the governments then in being were not actors either way. Government has no right to make itself a party in any debate 존중하는respecting(관한) the principles or modes of 형태화forming(제정legislation), or of 바꿈changing(개정), constitutions. It is not for the 혜택benefit(이익gain) of those who exercise the powers of government that constitutions, and the governments issuing from them, are 수립하는established(확립하는). In all those matters the right of judging and acting are in 돈지불하는이들those who pay(납세자), and not in 돈받는이들those who receive(세금징수자).
277~278 A constitution is the 프로퍼티property(것) of a nation, and not of those who exercise the government. All the constitutions of America are declared to be established on the 권한authority(권위) of the people. In France, the word nation is used instead of the people; but in both cases, a constitution is a 앞서는 거시기thing antecedent(앞서고) to the government, and always distinct there from.
278 From the want of understanding the difference between a constitution and a government, Dr. Johnson, and all writers of his description, have always bewildered themselves. They could not but perceive, that there must necessarily be a controlling power 실존해야existing(존재해야) somewhere, and they placed this power in the 참작discretion(분별심) of the persons exercising the government, instead of placing it in a constitution formed by the nation. When it is in a constitution, it has the nation for its support, and the natural and the political controlling powers are together. The laws which are enacted by governments, control men only as individuals, but the nation, through its constitution, controls the whole government, and has a natural 할힘ability(능력faculty) to do so. The 최종적인final(궁극적ultimate) controlling power, therefore, and the original 컨스티튜팅하는 권력constituting power(헌법제정권), are one and the same power.
279 In order to decide this question, it is necessary to consider a constitution in both its cases:- First, as 창조하고creating(만들고make) a government and 주는giving(부여하는) it powers. Secondly, as 규제하고regulating and 제약하는restraining the powers so given.
279 Magna Charta... It did not create and give powers to government in a manner a constitution does; but was... of the nature of a re-conquest, and not a constitution...
280 The act, called the Bill of Rights... for your share, You shall have the right of petitioning. This being the case, the bill of rights is more properly a bill of wrongs, and of insult.
282 Mr. Burke... "America," says he (in his speech on the Canada Constitution bill), "never dreamed of such absurd doctrine as the Rights of Man." ... For instance, If governments, as Mr. Burke asserts, are not founded on the Rights of Man, and are founded on any rights at all, they consequently must be founded on the right of something that is not man. What then is that something?
283 Mr. Burke, by proving against the Rights of Man, proves in behalf of the beast; and consequently, proves that government is a beast; and as difficult things sometimes explain each other, we now see the origin of keeping wild beasts in the Tower; for they certainly can be of no other use than to show the origin of the government. They are in the place of a constitution.
287 Government is nothing more than a national 어쏘시에이션association(결합); and the object of this association is the 모두의 선good of all(모두의 복지welfare), as well individually as collectively. Every man wishes to pursue his occupation, and to enjoy the fruits of his labours and the produce of his property in peace and safety, and with the least possible expense. When these things are 성취될accomplished(달성될attain), all the objects for which government ought to be 수립해야established are answered
287~288 It has been customary to consider government under three 구별된distinct(구분하는) 일반적인general(큰) 머리들heads(항목). The legislative, the 집행부executive(행정부), and the 재판부judicial(사법부). we can perceive no more than two 구분들divisions of power, of which 시민적인 정부통치civil government(시민정부) is 합성된다composed(구성하는), namely, that of legislating or 실현하는enacting(제정하는) laws, and that of executing or 행정하는administering them. Everything, therefore, 부속되는appertaining to civil government, classes itself under one or other of these two divisions. So far as 간주되는regards the execution of the laws, that which is called the 재판하는 권력judicial power(사법권), is strictly and properly the executive power of every country.
290 But in order to remove the objection against a single house (that of acting with too quick an impulse), and at the same time to avoid the inconsistencies, in some cases absurdities, arising from two houses, the following method has been proposed as an improvement upon both.
294 If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years.
296 Another reform in the American constitution is the exploding all 서약oaths of personality. The oath of allegiance in America is to the 국민nation(국가state) only. The putting any individual as a figure for a 국민nation(국가state) is improper. The happiness of a 국민nation is the superior object, and therefore the intention of an oath of allegiance ought not to be obscured by being figuratively taken, to, or in the name of, any 인격person(개인individual). The oath, called the 시민의 서약civic oath(시민선서), in France, viz., "the 국민nation(국가state), the law, and the king," is improper. If taken at all, it ought to be as in America, to the 국민nation(국가state) only.
● [사람의 올바룸들] 제 2부, 4장 안에서, [사람의 올바룸들] 제 2부, 4장 안에서, 가장 감동깊은 글귀는, “컨스티투션은 정부의 행동이 아니다. 컨스티투션은 정부를 컨스티튜팅하는 인민의 행동이다. 컨스티튜션없이 정부없고, 올바룸없이 권력없다”라는 글귀입니다.
“올바룸없이 권력없다”는 글귀가 특히 감동적입니다. 옮긴이는, “라이트”를 “권리”라고 해야했으므로, 이 부분을 “권리없이 권력없다”라고 한글화할 수 밖에 없었는데, 이렇게 옮기면, 뉘앙스가 아주 이상해집니다.
이게 바로 ‘라이트’를 “권리”라고 옮길 때 생기는 곤란입니다. (다른 하나는, 권리는 있는데, 의무는 왜 없지?라는 것이구요) 이러하기 때문에, 좋은 한글옮김낱말에 대한 고민이 소중합니다.
<인간본성으로부터 나오는 올바룸없이는 권력은 있을 수 없다>는 발언은 얼마나 통쾌합니까? 인간본성과 아무런 관계도 없는, 강도들의 폭력을 바탕으로 권력이 수립되었던, 어두운 과거와의 결연한 단절을, 그리고 그러한 폭군정부와 전횡주의로부터의 자유를 나는 이 글귀로부터 느낍니다.
이어지는 글들 안에서, 페인은 아주 자세하게 <새로운 정부통치의 체계>를 설명합니다. 내 생각으로는, 홉스-로크-스피노자-몽테스키외 등으로부터 발명되고 개발되었던 <새로운 대의제 민주정부>의 개념설계의 종결판이 페인의 이 4장이 아닌가 싶습니다.
특히, 내가 배운 것은, <계약은 인민들 사이에서 이루어진 것이지, 결코 정부와 인민 사이에서 이루어진 것이 아니다>라는 명쾌한 설명입니다. 인민과 정부 사이에 계약이 성립될 수 없음은 정부를 만드는 컨스티투션이란 거시기 때문입니다.
컨스티투션이 만드는 거시기가 정부인데, 인데, 인민이 컨스티투션을 만들기도 전에 정부란게 있을 수 없기 때문이라는 것이죠. 다시말하자면, 컨스티투션이 바로 계약이며, 이러한 계약의 실현enacting이 정부란 것입니다.
그다음으로, 페인은 영국 마그나카르타, 권리장전을 가혹하게 깝니다. 컨스티투션은 1) 정부를 창조하고, 그것에 권력들을 주는 인민들의 계약이며, 2) 준 권력들을 규제하고 제약하는 인민들의 계약인데, 마그나카르타나 권리장전은 그런 것에 한참 못미친다는 것입니다.
그러니 그러한 마그나카르타와 권리장전을 신주단지처럼 모시는 버크와 같은 영국사람들과 영국 안의 정부는 미국만도 못하다는 것이지요.
그리고 페인의 주장 가운데서 흥미로운 점은 3권분립이 아니라, 재판부를 집행부에 종속시켜서, 2권분립을 주장하는 듯이 보인다는 점입니다. 이 부분은 좀더 다른 주장들을 찾아보아야 할 듯 합니다.
그리고 마지막으로 페인은 양원제와 단원제, 둘 다를 결함있는 것으로 봅니다. 그래서 둘을 절충한 개선안을 내놓는데, 이 부분은 나도 잘 이해가 안됩니다.