論第六屆大法官司法解釋之態度取向-司法消極主義與司法積極主義之分析

dc.contributor陳文政zh_TW
dc.contributor.author吳德威zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-28T02:31:39Z
dc.date.available2009-05-14
dc.date.available2019-08-28T02:31:39Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.description.abstract採行司法違憲審查制度,係為當今憲政民主國家共同發展的方向。司法院大法官為我國憲法上最高且唯一之憲法解釋機關,肩負憲法賦予維護憲政制度之重責大任,素有「憲法守護神」之美譽。惟由非民選的法官,透過釋憲制度得逕行宣告民選的國會所制定的法律為違憲或無效,始具爭議性,即所謂的抗多數困境的問題。職是,大法官於權威性解釋憲法,審查、宣告其他國家機關行為之合憲性時,勢必面臨分寸拿捏的問題,亦即對於憲法上平行之其他國家機關(立法、行政等政治部門)之決策,應給予何種程度之尊重?申言之,大法官對於繫屬中之違憲疑義案件究應積極介入、嚴格審查,抑或消極尊重其他國家機關之決定,放寬審查,而介入程度及界限為何,是否有可預見之態度指標,又有否類型化操作之可能,實有深入探討與廓清之必要,此即本文所欲探討之「司法消極主義」與「司法積極主義」之問題。 本文將第六屆大法官所作成之解釋分為「基本權」與「憲政秩序」兩大種類,透過類型化的分析,探討第六屆大法官,於何種事務領域中採取傾向消極或者積極的審查態度,並分析其原因為何。最後提出審查態度取向的初步構想,以提供可資參酌之態度指標。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractUsing judicial review of constitutionality institution is the common development direction of constitutional democracies nowadays. According the constitution of the Republic of China, Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan are the supreme and sole constructionist. They are vested with the authority to shoulders the heavy duties of safeguard and support of the constitutional system. For this reason, Grand Justices enjoy the good name of "guardian angel of constitution". The judges not selected by civilians are able to adjudicate the law enacted by the Congressmen selected by civilians to be Constitution-violating or ineffective. This is a controversial issue, what so-called problem of anti-majority dilemma. Therefore, being the guardian for the constitution by the government organization of interpret constitution, as they review the constitutionality of other government organization’s actions, must face the question which the discretion acts bashful, that is regarding constitution in parallel other government organizations (political department such as legislation or administration) decision-making, should give how degree respects to them? That is to say, grand justices should positively involve and strict scrutiny or negatively respect other government organizations decision and relax the scrutiny when review the case that may have doubt of violate of the constitution. When they face that situation, how involvement degree and boundary they can, whether has possibility of the unification vein to follow, also whether has possibility of the type operation, really need thorough discussion, this is the article wants to discuss, “Judicial Passivism” and “Judicial Activism”. This article differentiates the judicial interpretations of the sixth session of the Grand Justices between the classifications of basic rights and constitutional order. Discussing the sixth session of the Grand Justices tend to take passive or active attitude toward what kind of affairs area, and why it is. Finally, we bring up initial ideas of attitudinal orientation of judicial review, which provides a referential index.en_US
dc.description.sponsorship政治學研究所zh_TW
dc.identifierGN0694100024
dc.identifier.urihttp://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22GN0694100024%22.&%22.id.&
dc.identifier.urihttp://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/85651
dc.language中文
dc.subject司法違憲審查zh_TW
dc.subject司法消極主義zh_TW
dc.subject司法積極主義zh_TW
dc.subject第六屆大法官zh_TW
dc.subjectJudicial Reviewen_US
dc.subjectJudicial Passivismen_US
dc.subjectJudicial Activismen_US
dc.subjectthe Sixth Session of the Grand Justicesen_US
dc.title論第六屆大法官司法解釋之態度取向-司法消極主義與司法積極主義之分析zh_TW
dc.titleAttitudinal orientation of Judicial Interpretations of the Sixth Session of the Grand Justices─An Analysis of Judicial Passivism and Judicial Activismen_US

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
n069410002401.pdf
Size:
3.19 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections