For our purposes, Pan’s criticism of Montesquieu’s theory of the division of power and the exaggerated negative assessment of the power of the monarch are not interesting. However, one cannot help but acknowledge his instructions that in order to support English freedom one must depend on the House of Commoners, and not on the king and peers, for they are the bearers of privileges that have a corrupting effect. Secondly, pointing out that nature has provided absolutely no basis for the pressure of people on rulers and subjects. People have the inalienable right to create a form of political cohabitation and to rebel against tyrants when the government has been overcome by “intolerable evil.” Engaged in political struggle, Sheng uses the principles of freedom and equality mainly for political reasons. In the same way, he does not derive this from the difference between society and the state, but the difference itself, which is so important for the further theory of the state and recognizes the government as an inevitable evil that can easily turn into unster-
1) Not everyone, like Hobbes, imagines a war against everyone. Rousseau e.g. consider the war to be the result of a political state.
EV SIA
Ava aorta o Vin Pink nedosaavinav; PaaysZA
— 361 his own evil (which Maine considers, among other things, to be some of the English acts of parliament), his very freedom-loving republican tendency, and finally, his influence on arousing the spirit of American independence - constitute Pan's merit. But this merit is not so much of a systematic theoretician as of the inspirer and creator of political-individual aistic attitude towards principles that were not further developed by the author himself.
X.
According to many English writers, the struggle of America with the metropolis was a struggle not of two peoples, but of two parties. One was an opponent, the other a defender of freedom, the roots of which were in the English Puritan revolution of the 17th century.
The theoretical formulation of the revolutionary ideas of the 17th century about individual rights!) was close to Locke's
The closest thing to the American declaration. This is emphasized by many Americanophile French writers 2).
It gave the dominant direction to the entire American revolutionary doctrine, since it was expressed in the declarations and principles of the American Constitution, explained by the “Federalist”. The direction is opposite to Hobbism, adopted by English parliamentary law, which recognizes the omnipotence of parliament. It still permeates the American Constitution. Violation of political laws by Congress to find opposition to the Federation in federal
1) Experience about the citizenship of governments” 6 135 et seq.
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
sweat,
362 courts, which have control over the constitutionality of ordinary laws.
The beginning of this was deliberately laid “1115 18143” by individual states and harmonies, where the rights of man and citizen were already recognized, like, for example, the English Ha'eas Sogriz. Thus, the significance of the declaration is to set the limits of subsequent legislative work and, in accordance with them, the basic laws of the country.
Every paragraph of the constitution, said Muzier 1), must flow from a certain principle. It should be based on the definition of individual rights assigned to an individual on the basis of natural justice.
And this characteristic is not only extremely apt. for the French, but also for the American constitution of that time, as well as for the journalistic views of the era. imbued with individualism.
But what does it mean that the constitution should be based on the determination of individual rights determined by natural justice? - Both meanings of this position can be revealed on the basis of the above. r
We have seen that Holbach also referred to natural justice in his understanding of fundamental laws. The meaning of the fundamental laws, according to him and his predecessors, was to curb power. "The liberties of the people." put forward the authorities. Naturally, the legal doctrine, as we said, atomized the concept of the people and, consequently, the liberties of the people received in it more significance than the inalienable rights of the individual. These rights, proclaimed by the declarations, according to the revolutionary doctrines, became constitutional in the sense that the very concept is constitutional
1) The author of the first three declarations.