학술논문
미국헌법판례상 권력분립이론의 전개와 규범적 평가
이용수 208
- 영문명
- The Unfolding of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers and Its Normative Assessment in the U.S. Constitutional Law Cases
- 발행기관
- 한국헌법학회
- 저자명
- 석인선(Seok In-sun)
- 간행물 정보
- 『헌법학연구』憲法學硏究 第9卷 第3號, 425~456쪽, 전체 32쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2003.10.01
6,640원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
The Constitution of the U. S. apportions or divides the powets of national government into three different branches - the legislative(Congress), the executive(the President and those appointed to assist him or her), and the judicial(the federal courts). This is the principle of separation of powers. The issues of separation of powers arise when it is claimed that one branch of government has usurped or encroached upon the function of another branch. While the doctrine of sepatation of powers protecrs each branch of the government against unwarranted encroachment by the other branches, these limitations exist not for the benefit of each branch as such, but as a means of safeguarding the rights of individuals. The violations of separation of powers therefore cannot be waived by the branch whose powers may have been impaired. For this reason, when the judiciary reviews a law challenged on the grounds of separation of powers, it is irrelevant that the branch whose authority has been usurped may have consented to the intrusion.
Alrhough the term, separation of powers, does not appear in the Constitution, the principle of the separation of powers is reflected on the very structure of the federal Constitution. Article I enumerates the 'legislative powers', Article Ⅱ discusses the "executive power", and Article Ⅲ defines the "judicial power", As a safeguard against the abuse of power, the Constitution incorporates a system of checks and balances through which the branches of government often share or articipate in functions principally assigned to a coordinate branch. By allocating the powers of the federal government among three branches, and yet at the same time commingling those powers so that many governmental functions require cooperation among the branches, the Founders deliberately created a system in which there is inhetent tension between the three branches. It is inevitable that this scheme of government will give rise to boundary disputes in which it is claimed that one branch has aggtandized itself by usurping authority that belongs to anothet btanch, or that one branch has encroached upon the dependence, authority, or integrity of a coordinate branch. These so-called interbranch disputes are often handled by the competing branches themselves through the give and take of the political process.
This article examines and assesses the troubles and unexplained disparity of approaches in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in separation of powers cases. The Second section of the article describes three basic approaches used to analyze separation of powers cases: (1) does the challenged action transgress specific provisions in the Constitution; (2) does the challenged action constitute an encroachment on the powers of another branch; or (3) does the challenged action substantially impair the ability of one branch to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities? In addition, I ask whether, in dealing with these types of challenges, the courts have appropriately responded to the questions that have troubled observers. Then, I point out the absence of the respects of safeguarding the rights of individuals in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in the separation of powers cases, and identify the Court's use of radically different methods of constitutional interpretation and of different standards for determining the availability of judicial review. I also consider the Court's failure to justify its different approaches and discuss how neither interpretive nor political theory provides a ready explanation for the Court's behavior.
Finally, I offer some observations and suggestions on the judicial role in the separation of powers cases. The Supreme Court's separation of powers jurisprudence should be an attempt to mold a body of law that adequately maintains the balance between the Congress and the President in a way that preserves and strengthens democratic rules. The Madisonian goal of avoiding tyran
목차
Ⅰ. 미국헌법상 권력분립원리의 일반이론
Ⅱ. 권력분립관련소송에서 미연방대법원의 해석접근법과 그 평가
Ⅲ. 권력분립관련사건의 규범적 판단근거
[참고문헌]
[ABSTRACT]
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 정보자기결정권
- 행정법상의 불확정법개념과 판단여지의 기본권적 한계
- 국가의 기본권보호의무 비판
- 헌법의 개방성과 폐쇄성
- 憲法改正과 法律의 持續效-憲法 附則 제5조와 관련하여-
- 수돗물불소화사업에 관한 헌법적 고찰
- 군사법원법상 군사법경찰관의 구속기간 연장 규정의 위헌성
- 인권과 흡연권
- 국가권력구조와 지방자치
- 放送의 自由에 대한 特殊한 規制의 正當性에 관한 硏究-獨逸 聯邦憲法裁判所의 放送判決을 中心으로-
- 情報社會에서 基本權制限槪念의 擴大必要性에 관한 考察
- 민주국가에서의 정치와 법
- 民主的 基本秩緖
- 憲法上 自己決定權과 個人情報自己決定權
- 인터넷언론과 선거
- 미국헌법판례상 권력분립이론의 전개와 규범적 평가
- 공공기관의 개인정보 보호법률에 대한 비판적 고찰-2003년 8월 20일의 입법예고 안을 중심으로-
참고문헌
관련논문
최근 이용한 논문
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!