Publications
Detailed Information
미국의 위헌심사기준으로서의 "이중 기준(二重基準) (Double Standard)" : "Double Standard" Approach As The Standard Of Judicial Review In The United States
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 이우영 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2009-10-08T02:26:07Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2009-10-08T02:26:07Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2009 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 법학, Vol.50 No.1, pp. 419-454 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1598-222X | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://lawi.snu.ac.kr/ | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10371/10271 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Contemporary constitutional adjudication in the United States is characterized
by a system of judicial review composed of three distinctive levels of scrutiny that are invoked in the respective spheres, referred to as strict, intermediate, and minimal or rational-basis scrutiny. This multi-level system of scrutiny as employed by the U.S. Supreme Court was established out of the constitutional crisis occasioned during the New Deal era. Through the U.S. Supreme Courts continual and extensive elaboration, most notably in equal protection clause cases spanning 1950s through 1980s, the system of multi-level scrutiny in the U.S. by now has revealed certain structural flaws. As criticized from both inside and outside the judiciary in the U.S., the multi-level system is a rigidified approach that might hinder proper constitutional analysis in the following respects. First, it might misdirect constitutional analysis by deflecting the focus of inquiry toward abstractions, i.e., the tiers of scrutiny, that might have little to do with the specific merits of a case. It might thus dilute constitutional analysis by using a priori definitions, such as fundamental right and suspect classification, to trigger the operative tier of scrutiny, thus hampering legal analysis by focusing the inquiry toward abstractions. Furthermore, the multi-level system might impede legal analysis by imposing categories upon the constitutional balancing process. Finally, the a priori categories used in the multi-level system have not always been capable of providing internal stability for the system, as particularly indicated in the equal protection cases pertaining to the suspect classifications. Especially since mid-1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated increasing deviation from the multi-level approach and has moved toward a less rigidified... | - |
dc.description.sponsorship | 이 논문은 서울대학교 법학발전재단 출연 법학연구소 기금의 2009학년도 학술연구비
의 보조를 받았음. | - |
dc.language.iso | ko | - |
dc.publisher | 서울대학교 법학연구소 | - |
dc.subject | 미연방대법원의 위헌심사기준 | - |
dc.subject | 다층적 위헌심사기준 체계 | - |
dc.subject | 이중 기준 방식 | - |
dc.subject | 중도적 심사 | - |
dc.subject | Supreme Court`s standard of judicial review | - |
dc.subject | double standard approach | - |
dc.subject | multi-Level system of judicial scrutiny | - |
dc.subject | rationality review | - |
dc.title | 미국의 위헌심사기준으로서의 "이중 기준(二重基準) (Double Standard)" | - |
dc.title.alternative | "Double Standard" Approach As The Standard Of Judicial Review In The United States | - |
dc.type | SNU Journal | - |
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor | Rhee, Woo Young | - |
dc.citation.journaltitle | 법학 | - |
dc.citation.endpage | 454 | - |
dc.citation.number | 1 | - |
dc.citation.pages | 419-454 | - |
dc.citation.startpage | 419 | - |
dc.citation.volume | 50 | - |
- Appears in Collections:
- Files in This Item:
Item View & Download Count
Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.