교육제도법정주의의 헌법적의미와 성격(기능) -헌법제31조 제4항과 동조 제6항에 관한 헌법재판소결정의 논증구조와 문제점 -
Constitutional Meaning and Characteristics of Codification of Education System
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
So far constitutional court have issued many decisions on education cases and stated ‘Codification of Education System.’ But it shows case by case giving interpretation of Constitutional Article 31 Clause 4 and Article 31 Clause 6 which are constitutional grounds of this system. That is, it interprets each case expands the discretion of legislators by separating the same provisions and judge them to be fundamental rights restriction or legal reservation of fundamental right formation. Different decisions from constitutional court on the same case was enough to raise concerns and distrust of constitutional court which is the top of decision judiciary structure. Considering its law-making background and textual position, Article 31 Clause 4 and Clause 6 should need systematic interpreting. In overall perspective of form of constitutional regulation and the necessity of fundamental rights materialize, legal reservation attached to the same provisions is definitely legal reservation of fundamental right formation. Therefore, in the future, constitutional court should take a consistent stand on dealing with educational cases with these points mentioned above. Based on foregoing arguments, it is to take responsibilities of opening new horizons as well as restoring its trust as the machinery of law. Based on foregoing arguments, it is to take responsibilities of opening new horizons as well as restoring its trust as Judicial institutions.
Abstract
So far constitutional court have issued many decisions on education cases and stated ‘Codification of Education System.’ But it shows case by case giving interpretation of Constitutional Article 31 Clause 4 and Article 31 Clause 6 which are constitutional grounds of this system. That is, it interprets each case expands the discretion of legislators by separating the same provisions and judge them to be fundamental rights restriction or legal reservation of fundamental right formation. Different decisions from constitutional court on the same case was enough to raise concerns and distrust of constitutional court which is the top of decision judiciary structure. Considering its law-making background and textual position, Article 31 Clause 4 and Clause 6 should need systematic interpreting. In overall perspective of form of constitutional regulation and the necessity of fundamental rights materialize, legal reservation attached to the same provisions is definitely legal reservation of fundamental right formation. Therefore, in the future, constitutional court should take a consistent stand on dealing with educational cases with these points mentioned above. Based on foregoing arguments, it is to take responsibilities of opening new horizons as well as restoring its trust as the machinery of law. Based on foregoing arguments, it is to take responsibilities of opening new horizons as well as restoring its trust as Judicial institutions.
참고문헌 (24)
- 계희열, "헌법학(중)" (2007), 박영사
- 안기성, "교육법학연구" (1989), 고려대학교 출판부
- 이광윤, "교육제도의 헌법적 문제에 관한 연구", 헌법판례연구, 14 (2003), 헌법재판소
- 성낙인, "헌법학" (2004), 법문사
- 장영수, "헌법학" (2007), 홍문사
- 허영, "헌법이론과 헌법" (2007), 박영사
- 홍성방, "헌법학" (2004), 현암사
- Alexy, R., "Theorie der Grundrechte", ~ (1986)
- H?erle, P., "Die Wesensgehaltgarantie des Art. 19 Abs. 2 Grundgesetz, 3. Aufl. 1983", ~ (1983)
- Hesse, K., "Grund??zuge des Verfassungsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 20. Aufl. 1995", ~ (1995)
- Stern, K., "Das Staatsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Band Ⅲ", 2, 1984, 1984
- 강태수, "헌법의 우위와 헌법유보", 법학논집, 18, pp.1~30 (2001), 청주대학교 법학연구소
- 김선택, "대학자치의 헌법적 보장과 구체화 입법, 사립학교법의 개혁방향", 한국헌법학회, 제35회 학술대회, pp.65~88 (2005)
- 계희열, "기본권의 제한", 안암법학, 2, pp.64~90 (1994), 안암법학회
- 이병훈, "법률유보와 위임입법-입법국가의 변천과 동요", 헌법학연구, 7(3), pp.88~110 (2001), 한국헌법학회
- 이부하, "헌법유보와 법률유보", 공법연구, 36(3), pp.201~224 (2008), 한국공법학회
- 조태제, "법률의 유보원칙-본질성 이론에 근거한 의회유보를 중심으로", 한양법학, 1, pp.105~129 (1990), 한양법학회
- 조홍석, "대학자체제와 교수회의 의결권", 헌법학연구, 9(1), pp.9~38 (2003), 한국헌법학회
- 한수웅, "교육의 자주성·전문성·정치적 중립성 및 교사의 교육의 자유", 저스티스, 통권 : 101, pp.36~59 (2007), 한국법학원
- 한수웅, "헌법 제37조 제2항의 과잉금지원칙의 의미와 적용범위", 저스티스, 통권 : 96, pp.5~28 (2006), 한국법학원
- 한수웅, "본질성이론과 입법위임의 명확성원칙", 헌법논총, 14, pp.579~583 (2003)
- Eberle, C. E., "Gesetzesvorbehalt und Parlamentsvorbehalt, DOV 1984, S", 485~493 (1984)
- Kisker, G., "Neue Aspekte im Streit um den Vorbehalt des Gesetzes, NJW 1977, S", 1313~1360 (1977)
- Kloepfer, M., "Der Vorbehalt des Gesetzes im Wandel, JZ 1984, S", 685~756 (1984)
