Abstract: There are two different constructions of constitutional rights, the rule construction and the principle construction.Rules，definitive commands and their form of application is subsumption. By contrast, principles are optimization re-quirements, which choose balancing as their specific form of the application. Till now, a good many objections to theprinciple construction as well as balancing have been raised. Among them the argumentation-theoretic objections throwingdoubt upon the rationality of balancing play a crucial role. In this Article the rationality of balancing will be defended.Bydiscovering und justifying the weight formula behind a proportionality test it would be proved that balancing is rational,and the principles theory, accordingly, is capable of serving as a doctrine of constitutional rights.

Key words: Constitutional Rights, Principle Construction, Rationality of Balancing, Proportionality Test, WeightFormula

摘要： 宪法权利的构造方式有两种，一种是规则构造，一种是原则构造。规则是明确命令，它的应用形式是涵摄，而原则是最优化命令，权衡是它独有的运用方式。原则构造迄今引发了诸多反对意见，最为重要的是对权衡的理性的质疑。本文是对权衡理性的辩护。通过发现和证立隐藏在德国宪法诉讼中合比例审查背后的衡量公式，文章尝试证明权衡是理性的，原则理论就此有能力成为宪法权利的基础学说。

关键词: 宪法权利, 原则构造, 权衡的理性, 合比例审查, 衡量公式