Symposium Honors 加里·劳森’s Book, 授权委托书
教职员工、学生和来宾齐聚一堂，共同探讨劳森对美国宪法受托人角色的诠释。
The 波士顿大学法学院 community gathered recently for a symposium to honor Philip S. Beck Professor of Law 加里·劳森 for the publication of his most recent book, co-authored with 家伙塞德曼, entitled “《委托书》：理解受托宪法.
The book explores how to interpret government powers and limitations in the context of a document intended to establish a trust relationship between the government and the governed—a 受托人 Constitution. 作者利用受托法律和政治理论的背景，认为宪法最好被理解为授予国家政府代理人有限的权力，以管理“我们人民”及其“子孙后代”的部分事务，宪法序言中将他们确定为该工具的委托人和受益人。 伴随信托文书的背景规范，如忠诚、谨慎、公正和个人行使自由裁量权的义务，揭示了宪法解释的许多问题。
The Honorable Paul J. Liacos Professor of Law 詹姆斯·弗莱明 opened the event by citing Lawson’s achievements as a “productive scholar, excellent teacher, and magnanimous person,” noting that this was the third symposium held for Lawson since 2011, when the school began the symposia series to celebrate faculty scholarship.
To begin the discussion, BU Professor of Law and Michaels Faculty 新濠影汇线上赌场研究 Scholar 弗兰克尔 traced the historical and practical understanding of 受托人 law. 她认为，人类彼此需要，但相互依赖会导致权力不平衡，这可能导致弱势一方滥用权力。 她指出，信托法反映并回应了这种权力结构：“没有义务就没有权力。” 她赞扬了这本书所承担的巨大工程：“理解受托宪法就是理解宪法权力。”
伊森莱布福特汉姆大学法学院约翰·d·卡拉马里杰出法学教授谈到了我们看待信托关系的不同方法。 他认为，这本书需要更多的努力才能从一个思想实验变成现实，因为在评估这本书的抽象论点之前，需要回答许多关于信托理论在现实世界治理中的应用的问题。 他和弗兰克尔教授还提出了一个问题，即对1788年的信义理解是否对现代诠释者具有决定性意义，特别是如果信义法本身随着时间的推移而发生变化的话。
BU Law Professor of Law emeritus, 拉里Yackle, a long-time colleague of Lawson’s, acknowledged that although he has a different opinion towards proper interpretation of the Constitution than Lawson does, the book is “very careful to circumscribe this work and to say what it is, and what it is not.” 他向劳森提出了三个问题：“你认为这本书有多激进？ 你认为这篇论文有多激进？ 你认为信义原则的主要作用在哪里？ 是形成了特定条款的含义，还是这些原则贯穿了整个宪法？”
劳森回答了同事们提出的问题，结束了研讨会。 In response to comments about how 受托人 laws can change over time, Lawson noted that he and his coauthor 家伙塞德曼, professor of law with the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya in Israel, were taking a snapshot of how the Constitution was understood at a particular historical moment. “我们并没有打算讨论司法审查或政治理论，”他说。 “我们试图提供一个解释性框架。 如果把宪法看作是一份信托文件，那么接下来会发生什么呢？ 如何将其融入现实世界的解释理论是一个需要花费一生的项目。”