RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    美國 憲法上 結社의 自由

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A105296117

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    The freedom of association has been regarded to be essential in modern democratic nations. It functions as a mechanism to form political parties, labor unions and other social organizations on the one hand, and to protect minorities and social weak people on the other. Nevertheless, there is no provision to protect the freedom of association in the First Amendment of the U.S.A. Constitution. But in numerous cases, the Supreme Court has held that the freedom of association derives by implication from the explicitly-stated of speech, press, assembly, and petition.
    However, the freedom of association has not been broadly construed by the Court. All that has been recognized is a right to join with others to pursue goals independently protected by the First Amendment. The goals of this right include political advocacy, literary expression, and religious worship, among others. Since there is a special freedom of association only where the goals are independently protected by the First Amendment, there is no special freedom to engage in social association .
    The Court has also recognized a right not associate; that is, individuals have a constitutional rights not to be compelled to support most types of expressional activities by organizations of which they do not approve. Similarly, the government may not force you to disclose your membership activities, unless it could make that membership illegal. There are some exceptions to the general rule that associational activities that couldn t be outlawed directly, also can t be made the basis for public hiring, or benefit decisions. In general, these exceptions are for conduct which, although it includes protected expression, directed relates performance of the job.
    Government is not absolutely forbidden to impair the freedom of association, just as it is not absolutely forbidden to interfere with freedom of speech. However, before the government may significantly interfere with protected associational activity, two showings must be made: (1) that the governmental interest being pursued is a compelling one; and (2) that that interest cannot be achieved by means less restrictive of the freedom of association. In other words, strict scrutiny is normally applied. The equality principle is also applied; that is, one governmental interest that cannot be achieved without restrictions on the First Amendment freedoms, is the interest in preventing discrimination based on race, sex, and othed suspect criterion.
    There is an associational character in the freedom of association, so this freedom should be limited so as to be harmonized with other values, such as national security, social order, public moral and other s freedoms. Since 1950s, the Court has expanded the scope of this freedom on the influence of liberalism, but there are limitations in order to protect these values, however. In the 1960s, the civil rights movement had deployed peaceful demonstrations as a means to succeed in the movement nationwide, culminating in the use of civil disobedience . Thus, this article deals with the freedom of association - its definition, contents, and limitations - in terms of the Supreme Court decisions.
    번역하기

    The freedom of association has been regarded to be essential in modern democratic nations. It functions as a mechanism to form political parties, labor unions and other social organizations on the one hand, and to protect minorities and social weak pe...

    The freedom of association has been regarded to be essential in modern democratic nations. It functions as a mechanism to form political parties, labor unions and other social organizations on the one hand, and to protect minorities and social weak people on the other. Nevertheless, there is no provision to protect the freedom of association in the First Amendment of the U.S.A. Constitution. But in numerous cases, the Supreme Court has held that the freedom of association derives by implication from the explicitly-stated of speech, press, assembly, and petition.
    However, the freedom of association has not been broadly construed by the Court. All that has been recognized is a right to join with others to pursue goals independently protected by the First Amendment. The goals of this right include political advocacy, literary expression, and religious worship, among others. Since there is a special freedom of association only where the goals are independently protected by the First Amendment, there is no special freedom to engage in social association .
    The Court has also recognized a right not associate; that is, individuals have a constitutional rights not to be compelled to support most types of expressional activities by organizations of which they do not approve. Similarly, the government may not force you to disclose your membership activities, unless it could make that membership illegal. There are some exceptions to the general rule that associational activities that couldn t be outlawed directly, also can t be made the basis for public hiring, or benefit decisions. In general, these exceptions are for conduct which, although it includes protected expression, directed relates performance of the job.
    Government is not absolutely forbidden to impair the freedom of association, just as it is not absolutely forbidden to interfere with freedom of speech. However, before the government may significantly interfere with protected associational activity, two showings must be made: (1) that the governmental interest being pursued is a compelling one; and (2) that that interest cannot be achieved by means less restrictive of the freedom of association. In other words, strict scrutiny is normally applied. The equality principle is also applied; that is, one governmental interest that cannot be achieved without restrictions on the First Amendment freedoms, is the interest in preventing discrimination based on race, sex, and othed suspect criterion.
    There is an associational character in the freedom of association, so this freedom should be limited so as to be harmonized with other values, such as national security, social order, public moral and other s freedoms. Since 1950s, the Court has expanded the scope of this freedom on the influence of liberalism, but there are limitations in order to protect these values, however. In the 1960s, the civil rights movement had deployed peaceful demonstrations as a means to succeed in the movement nationwide, culminating in the use of civil disobedience . Thus, this article deals with the freedom of association - its definition, contents, and limitations - in terms of the Supreme Court decisions.

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼