대화적 사법심사와 반복입법 = Dialogic Judiciary Review and Reiterated Legislation

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Discussions are underway about the Constitutional Court`s unconstitutional decision on the law that the Legislator formed restrains his own. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court doesn`t take a clear position about reiterated legislation of the Legislature against unconstitutional decision. However, if we think that the Constitutional Court`s unconstitutionality on a law could be wrong, we cannot help meeting with regard to problem that the Constitutional Court can prohibit reiterated legislation of the Legislator. We know the fact through cases of the United States that the Supreme Court declared constitutionality of Slavery in Dred Scott v. Sanford case, and of the separation of blacks and whites Education in Brown v. Board of Education case. We also knows the fact that In Dred Scott case, even though President Lincoln showed respect for the Supreme Court`s decision on constitutionality of Slavery, he declared that Supreme Court`s Constitutional Interpretation was wrong, and tried to override the effect of the judgment on his best way. Namely, the thing that Constitutional Interpretation of the Constitutional Court is not always right make us stop finding justification to ban reiterated legislation against his wrong. But, if unconditionally, the Legislator can reiterate legislation, in case no wrong, Congress might do it. If so, there is no way to prevent abuse of arbitrary authority of Legislator. However, It is important that Reliance of the Constitutional Court has been keeping rank 1 with the people, meanwhile. Namely, The majority of the Constitutional Court`s decision is for the people. The problem, as the times change, is that the will of the people is gradually changing, and so they want to change prior decision of the Constitutional Court. Also, the Constitutional Court sometimes impinges wrong Constitutional Interpretation, and then the people sharply criticize. By the way, we need to consider that the common denominator is the changed will of the people. In other words, there must be the serious will of the people for changing prior decision of the Constitutional Court. Considering these points, in principle, Congress must respect unconstitutional decision of the Constitutional Court, if, the people want to change the decision, the Legislator must converge enough the changed will of the people, and then can be reiterated legislation. In short, whether Legislature or the Constitutional Court, every Constitutional Authority must perform his obligation that converge enough the changed will of the people within the scope of his own authority.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 김선택, "헌법적 대화에 있어서 헌법재판소의 역할" 한국공법학회 2013년 공동 국제학술대회 : 37 ~ 66, 2013
• 2 최윤철, "헌법재판소의 결정과 입법자의 대응" 헌법학연구 18 (3) : 205 ~ 247, 2012
• 3 박진완, "헌법재판소와 국회와의 관계 - 규범반복금지 -" 헌법학연구 11 (2) : 75 ~ 110, 2005
• 4 허완중, "헌법재판소결정의 기속력" 헌법판례연구 13 (1) : 315 ~ 378, 2012
• 5 허영, "헌법소송법론" 박영사, 2012
• 6 박숙자, "여성의 낙태 선택권과 입법과제 연구" 한국여성학 17 (2) : 69 ~ 98, 2001
• 7 양현아, "여성낙태권의 필요성과 그 함의" 한국여성학 21 (1) : 5 ~ 39, 2005
• 8 이덕연, "안마사자격 ‘비맹제외기준’에 대한 헌재결정 평석" 공법연구 35 (2) : 187 ~ 208, 2006
• 9 이동명, "사형제도의 위헌성 고찰" 법학연구 38 (1) : 223 ~ 251, 2010
• 10 허일태, "사형제도의 세계적 추세와 위헌성" 동아법학 1 (45) : 263 ~ 298, 2009
• 11 박영숙, "사형제도에 관한 연구 : 사형제도 존치론적 입장에서" 교정복지연구 13 (1) : 85 ~ 100, 2008
• 12 승재현,조성제, "사형제도 폐지에 대한 논의와 과제" 한국치안행정학회 한국치안행정학회 학술세미나 2010 (1) : 89 ~ 100, 2010
• 13 황병돈, "사형제도 폐지 논의에 대한 고찰" 홍익법학 8 (3) : 185 ~ 224, 2007
• 14 공진성, "반복입법금지에 관한 소고" 헌법학연구 16 (4) : 363 ~ 390, 2010
• 15 강승식, "미국 사법심사제도에 대한 기본적 이해" 공법연구 33 (1) : 213 ~ 244, 2004
• 16 임웅, "낙태죄의 비범죄화에 관한 연구" 성균관법학 17 (2) : 371 ~ 392, 2005
• 17 김성배, "낙태죄에 관한 소고" 정법논총 20 (1) : 199 ~ 206, 1985
• 18 배종대, "낙태죄" 고시연구 20 (5) : 91 ~ 105, 1993
• 19 이병규, "낙태에 대한 헌법적 논의" 법학논총 28 (1) : 135 ~ 168, 2012
• 20 최희수, "규범통제결정의 기속력" 한독법학 1 (14) : 1 ~ 23, 2003
• 21 김선택, "공화국원리와 한국헌법의 해석" 헌법학연구 15 (3) : 213 ~ 250, 2009
• 22 조현욱, "간통죄폐지에 관한 소고" 사회과학연구 17 (1) : 1 ~ 18, 2008
• 23 이희훈, "간통죄의 위헌성에 대한 연구 - 헌법재판소 2008. 10. 30, 2007헌가17 결정에 대한 비판을 중심으로-" 토지공법연구 43 (3) : 491 ~ 510, 2009
• 24 윤석용, "간통죄에 관한 입법론적 고찰" 법정논총 24 (1) : 200 ~ 215, 1984
• 25 김상철, "간통죄 폐지를 보는 눈" 고시계 37 (8) : 59 ~ 61, 1992
• 26 조소영, "‘비맹제외기준’에 의한 안마사자격 규정에 대한 헌법적 고찰" 공법학연구 9 (3) : 251 ~ 274, 2008
• 27 Alan Brinkley, "The Unfinished Nation: a concise history of the American People" The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, 2004
• 28 Matthew A. Hennigar, "Expanding the ‘Dialogue’ Debate: Canadian Federal Government Responses to Lower Court Charter Decisions" Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 37 (1) : 3 ~ 21, 2004
• 29 Barry Friedman, "Dialogue and Judicial Review" Michigan Law Review 91 (4) : 577 ~ 682, 1993
• 30 Erica Bussey, "Constitutional Dialogue in Uganda" Journal of African Law 49 (1) : 1 ~ 23, 2005
• 31 T. R. S. Allan, "Constitutional Dialogue and the Justification of Judicial Review" Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 23 (4) : 563 ~ 584, 2003
• 32 Glen Staszewski, "Constitutional Dialogue In A Republic Of Statures" MICH. ST. L. REV : 837 ~ 875, 2010