미국 연방대법원의 3단계 심사기준의 성립 과정
The Formation Process of the Three-tiered Scrutiny of the US Supreme Court
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
미국 연방대법원이 채택한 3단계 위헌심사기준은 오늘날 대부분의 사회-경제적 입법과 헌법상 권리의 제한에 적용되고 있다. 이는 입법목적의 헌법적 정당성과 채택된 수단의 목적 달성과의 연관성을 기본틀로 하여 단계화 되어 있다. 그 발전단계는 무정형의 단계(정립 전의 단계)→합리성 심사→엄격심사 →중간심사의 차례로 정립되었는데, 이 글은 각 단계별로 중요한 발전과정의 판례들의 논지를 심사기준의 관점에서 살펴보고 있다. 판례들의 분석 결과 3단계 심사기준은 관념적, 논리적으로 채택된 것이 아니라, 오랜 기간의 사법심사 과정에서, 사회상황의 변화에 연방대법원이 반응하면서, 서서히 진화된 것임을 알 수 있었다. 마지막으로 이 연구가 비교법적 관점에서 우리 헌법재판의 심사기준 발전에 어떤 시사점을 줄 수 있는가를 간단히 살펴보았다.
Abstract
The three-tiered scrutiny-rational basis test, strict scrutiny, and intermediate or hightened scrutiny-is the most broadly used standards of review in judicial review by the US Supreme Court. The basic structure of those look same since all require scrutinizing the legitimacy of legislative objectives and the relation of means to achievement of them. That makes the adoption of those standards more like a logical or theoretical work. When we track the historical formation of those, however, we can find they were not the products of logic or theory but the long experience of evolution in jurisprudence of US Supreme Court. This article searches the formation process or the historical development of them by analysing related famous Supreme Court decisions in regard of standard of review, from Marbury v. Madison, 1803 to LALLI V. LALLI, 439 U.S. 259 (1978) which adopted finally the intermediate scrutiny in gender-based classification case. Specifically, this paper purports to explain through the searches what was the standard of review, if any, before the rational basis test emerged mainly in 1930s, why the rational basis review was developed, how it influenced the development of strict scrutiny, and why the Court had to adopt the intermediate level on top of the existing two-tiered standard. A collateral purpose of this study is to look for some connotation in the aspect of comparative law from the formation process of those for future development of the Korean Constitutional Court's standard of review. A brief description of that is added at the end.
참고문헌 (28)
- Oliver Windell Holmes, Jr., "The Common Law", pp.1~ (1881), Little Brown and Company
- "The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36", ~ (1873)
- Farber, "Constitutional Law：Themes for the Constitution's Third Century", pp.18~19 (2003)
- "Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 259", ~
- "Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275", ~
- "Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339", ~
- "Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, and SSoon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703", ~
- Hall, "American Legal History", pp.475~476 (2005)
- "Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535, 406 U. S. 546", ~ (1972)
- "Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U. S. 78, 404 U. S. 81", ~ (1971)
- "Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 363 U. S. 611", ~ (1960)
- "McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 366 U. S. 426", ~ (1961)
- "Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 397 U. S. 485", ~ (1970)
- Lawrence Gene Sager, "Fair Measure：The Legal Status of Underenforced Constitutional Norms", Harv. L. Rev, 91, pp.1212~1215 (1978)
- "Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 510", ~ (1976)
- "City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 446-50", ~ (1985)
- "Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631-36", ~ (1996)
- Richard H. Fallon, Jr., "Strict Judicial Scrutiny", UCLA L. Rev, 54, pp.1267~ (2007)
- "Mobile &c Railroad Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35, 219 U. S. 43", ~
- "Board of Excise v. Merchant, 103 N.Y. 143, 148", ~
- "Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 127", ~ (1959)
- "Uphaus v. Wyman, 360 U.S. 72, 81", ~ (1959)
- Goldberg, J., "Griswold, 381 U.S. at 497", ~
- Adam Winkler, "FATAL IN THEORY AND STRICT IN FACT：AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF STRICT SCRUTINY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS", Vand. L. Rev, 59, pp.793~ (2006)
- Michael C. Dorf, "Constitutional Law Stories" (2004), Foundation Press
- "MATHEWS V. LUCAS, 427 U. S. 495, 504-5", ~ (1976)
- Alan Watson, "Legal Transplants：An Approach to Comparative Law" (1974), university Press of Virginia