미국의 위헌심사기준으로서의 이중 기준(二重基準) (Double Standard) = Double Standard Approach As The Standard Of Judicial Review In The United States

다국어 초록 (Multilingual 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 Court`s 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 application of a rather unified standard of judicial review. This conceptual movement has appeared more clearly in the areas of freedom of expression and substantive due process, and, to a much lesser degree, in the area of equal protection. In terms of methodology, there have been more evident departures from the multi-tier system, and, there also has been less blatant deviation from the system accomplished through various means of, for example, upgrading or strengthening minimal scrutiny, downgrading intermediate scrutiny, and carving out exceptions to strict scrutiny.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 정종섭, "헌법학원론(제3판)" 박영사 2008

2 권영성, "헌법학원론(개정판-2008년판)" 법문사 2008

3 성낙인, "헌법학(제8판)" 법문사 2008

4 정종섭, "헌법소송법(제5판)" 박영사 2008

5 박용상, "표현의 자유" 현암사 2003

6 김형남, "최근 미국 사법심사기준의 변화와 경향" 15 (15): 2006

7 양건, "위헌법률심사와 ‘최소한의 합리성’의 기준 - 미국 연방대법원 판례를 중심으로" 고시계 1990

8 이상윤, "영미법(개정판)" 박영사 2003

9 윤명선, "사법심사제와 다수결주의 - Ely의 ‘과정’이론에 대한 비판적 접근" 18 : 1990

10 김도균, "법적 이익형량의 구조와 정당화문제" 법학연구소 48 (48): 31-115, 2007

11 이발래, "미합중국헌법상의 사법심사" 42 : 1995

12 나달숙, "미국헌법상 평등보호를 위한 사법심사" 한국법학회 20 : 181-202, 2005

13 석인선, "미국의 의회 입법권과 위헌법률심사제의 상호관계" 한국헌법학회 10 (10): 511-551, 2004

14 한상희, "미국에서의 사법심사의 준거 - 헌법의 해석학을 중심으로" 9 : 1998

15 이명웅, "미국과 한국의 위헌심사제 비교 - 헌법적 근거, 심사기준, 결정의 효력을 중심으로" 대한변호사협회 (357) : 29-47, 2006

16 이명구, "미국 헌법상 위헌법률심사제에 관한 연구 - 미국의 위헌법률심사가 우리에게 미친 영향을 중심으로" 5 (5): 1999

17 김형남, "미국 연방대법원의 사법심사 기준" (12) : 2001

18 김형남, "미국 사법심사제도의 재조명" (12) : 2003

19 김형남, "미국 법원에서의 사법심사절차에 관한 분석" 27 (27): 1999

20 Norman Redlich, "UNDERSTANDING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW(제3판)" LexisNexis 2004

21 G. Sidney Buchanan, "Toward a Unified Theory of Governmental Power to Regulate Protected Speech" 18 : 531-, 1986

22 Gerald Gunther, "The Supreme Court, 1971 Term - Foreword: In Search of Evolving Doctrine on a Changing Court: A Model for a Newer Equal Protection" 86 : 1-, 1972

23 Jeffrey M. Shaman, "The Rule of Reasonableness in Constitutional Adjudication:Toward the End of Irresponsible Judicial Review and the Establishment of a Viable Theory of the Equal Protection Clause" 2 : 153-, 1975

24 G. Sidney Buchanan, "The Right of Privacy: Past, Present, and Future" 16 : 403-, 1989

25 Arthur S. Miller, "The Myth of Neutrality in Constitutional Adjudication" 27 : 661-, 1960

26 Jeffrey M. Shaman, "The Constitution, the Supreme Court, and Creativity" 9 : 257-, 1982

27 David P. Currie, "The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Preferred-Position Debate, 1941-1946" 37 : 39-, 1987

28 Leo Pfeffer, "THIS HONORABLE COURT: A HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" Beacon Press 1965

29 Kenneth L. Karst, "Legislative Facts in Constitutional Litigation" 1960 : 75-, 1960

30 Kenneth L. Karst, "Invidious Discrimination: Justice Douglas and the Return of the ‘Natural-Law-Due-Process Formula" 16 : 716-, 1969

31 Arthur E. Sutherland, "CONSTITUTIONALISM IN AMERICA: ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF ITS FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS" Blaisdell Publishing Co 1965

32 Erwin Chemerinsky, "CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES(제3판)" Aspen Publishers 2006

33 Kathleen M. Sullivan, "CONSTITUTIONAL LAW(제16판)" Foundation Press 2007

34 Laurence Tribe, "AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW" West Publishing Co 1999

35 "16A AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE (제2판)"