裁判说理援引宪法的政策与法理证成
Policy and Jurisprudential Evidence of Invoking the Constitution in Adjudicative Reasoning

我国法院对适用宪法的探索在经历了宪法司法化与合宪性解释后发展出了在裁判说理中援引宪法的“裁判说理”与“裁判依据”的二分政策，该政策在理论和实践上都有其存在的合理性，但仍面临着外界对其提出的宪政风险等质疑。本文从政策和法理两个角度切入，通过论证全面实施宪法需要法院发挥作用、对法院裁判的更高要求需要其援引宪法以及援引宪法有利于激活我国合宪性审查制度来证成其政策合理性，再通过论证法院享有对宪法的适用性解释权以及裁判说理中援引宪法并不意味着行使合宪审查权来证成其法理正当性。
The exploration of the application of the Constitution by the courts of China, after the judicialization of the Constitution and the interpretation of constitutionality, has developed a dichotomous policy of “adjudicative reasoning” and “adjudicative basis” of invoking the constitution in adjudicative reasoning, which has its own reasonableness in theory and practice, but still faces the challenge of constitutional risks. This paper from the policy and jurisprudence of the two angles, through the argument that the full implementation of the constitution needs the court to play a role in the courts, the courts need to invoke the constitution of the higher requirements of the referee and in-voke the constitution is conducive to activate the system of review of the constitutionality of our country to prove the policy reasonableness, and then through the courts enjoy the right to interpret the constitution of the applicability of the constitution, and refereeing the invocation of the consti-tution does not mean that the exercise of the power of review of the constitutionality of the law to prove that it is justified.