The holder of "judicial constitution" or "the theory of direct application of constitution" confuses constitution with ordinary law, which is a very ridiculous view-just as ridiculous as confusing parents and children. Keywords constitution; General law; Introduction to Constitutional Judicature There are many absurd opinions and remarks in the legal research of contemporary China, most of which are presented in the form of pseudo-propositions that violate scientific thinking and authenticity. For example, the so-called "constitutional judicature" or "the theory of direct application of the constitution" is one of them. The so-called "judicialization of constitution" or "direct application of constitution" as the object of criticism first assumes a wrong premise: constitution is law; Then put forward a "correct" premise: law is the basis of ordinary justice; Finally, it is concluded that the constitution is judicial, or it can be directly applied to the trial of ordinary cases. This view is wrong and absurd. The logical premise of the critical method of "judicial constitution" is that "constitution is law", which is completely wrong in the view of empirical analysis law. Starting from the basic logic principle, since the premise of this view is wrong, the subsequent conclusions are naturally wrong. In the following refutation, I will mainly use the legal research method of logical empirical analysis to refute "judicial constitution" and "direct application of constitution" From the perspective of empirical law, constitution is a political declaration, a typical embodiment of national ideology, and a manifestation of the country's lack of operational political stance. In other words, the constitution is the mother law and the law in the law. This feature of the constitution shows that it can only adjust the contradictory relationship between laws, but can not be applied to the trial of ordinary cases. Exceptions Of course, if there is a Constitutional Court or a Constitutional Council, it is right to directly apply the Constitution to judge whether a law or regulation itself is unconstitutional. However, the Constitution cannot and should not be directly applied to the trial of specific ordinary cases. The reason is simple: the constitution is a law, but it is not an ordinary law. In particular, it should be emphasized that the Constitution is not an ordinary law that can be used to directly try ordinary criminal, civil and administrative cases. Core argument: in jurisprudence, the constitution is at the highest level of law, which is the legal basis and legal source of all ordinary laws, while ordinary laws (including criminal law, civil law, procedural law, etc. ) is located under the constitution and constitutes the second-level law, which is the difference between the constitution and ordinary laws. The main difference between ordinary law and constitution is that ordinary law can be directly applied to the trial of specific criminal, civil and administrative cases, while constitution cannot be directly applied to the trial of specific criminal, civil and administrative cases. Why? Because of the declarative, vague and highly abstract nature of the constitutional provisions, the constitutional provisions have no legal consequences and no penalties. For example, the Constitution does not stipulate which crimes should be sentenced to death, nor does it stipulate which acts should be fined several yuan. I would like to ask: how can such a constitutional clause that does not contain legal responsibility be directly applied to specific cases? Core point argument 3: In a constitution that does not stipulate the legal consequences and legal responsibilities of specific cases at all, how can a court judge directly apply the constitution to sentence a criminal to death? Imagine: Can a judge of Xi 'an Intermediate People's Court write such a judgment? According to Article * * of the Constitution of People's Republic of China (PRC), the defendant Yao Jiaxin was sentenced to death ... I think that as long as readers have normal and general legal thinking, they will find this a ridiculous judgment. There was no such judgment in China in the past, present and future. Conclusion The holder of "judicial constitution" or "theory of direct application of constitution" confuses constitution with ordinary law, which is a very ridiculous view-as ridiculous as confusing parents and children. By extension, there is an insurmountable common legal obstacle between the Constitution and ordinary criminal, civil and administrative cases. This common legal barrier consists of common administrative law, criminal law, civil law, contract law, commercial law, procedural law, environmental law, labor and social security law, etc. This barrier is based on specific and operable penalties, penalties, legal responsibilities and punitive and beneficial legal consequences. Therefore, only they can be directly applied to the trial of specific cases. However, the Constitution does not have such specific and operable penalties, penalties and legal responsibilities. Therefore, it is impossible for the Constitution to cross this barrier and directly or indirectly apply to specific cases. Sadly, some scholars who don't have the minimum level of legal thinking simply don't consider the difference between the constitution and ordinary laws, and confuse the constitutional provisions with the ordinary legal provisions with clear legal consequences and operability. This is the biggest absurdity and absurdity of the holder of the view of "constitutional judicature" Isn't this a silhouette of China's "legal naivety"? 20 1 1-5-2