Abstract: In the period of social transformation，the meaning of the Article 131 of the 1982 constitution changes，which needs to be reinterpreted in combination with history，text and reality.The normative meaning of the subject exercising judicial power independently according to law tends to extend，the power limiting function of“according to the law”is strengthened，the provisions of enumerative exclusion of“interference”contain double-sided meaning，and the two-level meaning of the boundary of trial independence is gradually formed.The focus of the boundary of trial independence has changed from the subjects of intervention trial to the subject behaviors，which makes up for the constitutional loophole that can not finely judge the legitimacy of the subject behaviors of intervention trial，and the normative analysis framework of this clause changes from a two-tier structure to a three-tier structure.The conflicts of multiple values may lead to a variety of explanations for the change of the normative meaning of the clause，and different conflict forms adopt different measurement schemes.The dispute over whether judges independently exercise trial power in accordance with law involves the superposition of multiple value conflicts and repeated weighing scheme.The dominant position and role of judges in the overall independent exercise of trial by the court have been promoted.The controversial issue of how different subjects intervene in court trial involves the intertwined conflicts of different values，which is measured by the unified standard of the new three-level normative analysis framework.For the controversial issue of whether the protection of human rights is against the overall interests of the people as a substantive element to restrict the intervention of various subjects in the trial，which involves the conflict between the old and new values of human rights and democracy，we should adopt a compatible way to balance.This reveals the Chinese logic of the constitutional change of this clause.

Key words: Constitutional Change, Constitutional Interpretation, Judicial Power, Trial Independence Boundary, Value Conflicts Measurement

摘要：

社会转型时期，1982年宪法第131条规范意涵变迁，需要结合历史、文本和现实重新解释。依照法律规定独立行使审判权主体的规范意涵趋向延伸，“依照法律规定”限权功能强化，列举式排除“干涉”规定蕴含双面意涵，审判独立边界两阶层意涵渐进形成。审判独立边界的聚焦从干预审判的主体转变为主体行为，弥补了无法精细判断干预审判主体行为正当性的宪法漏洞，该条款的规范分析框架由两阶层结构转变为三阶层结构。多元价值冲突引发对该条款变迁的多种解释可能，不同的冲突形态采用不同的衡量方案。法官是否依照法律规定独立行使审判权的争议问题，关涉多重价值冲突叠加，采取反复权衡的方案，法官在法院整体依照法律规定独立行使审判权中的主导地位和作用被推进；不同主体如何干预法院审判的争议问题，涉及不同价值冲突相互交织，采用新三阶层规范分析框架的统一标准来衡量；保障人权作为限制各种主体干预审判的实质要件是否违背人民整体利益的争议问题，涉及人权和民主新旧价值的冲突，采用兼容方式平衡。这透视出该条款宪法变迁的中国逻辑。

关键词: 宪法变迁, 宪法解释, 审判权, 审判独立边界, 价值冲突衡量