政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/134097
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113318/144297 (79%)
Visitors : 51098424      Online Users : 937
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version
    政大典藏 > College of Law > Department of Law > Theses >  Item 140.119/134097


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/134097


    Title: 論具殺傷力合理審查基準—— 以平等權相關案例為中心
    On the Standard of “ Rational Basis Review with Bite”- Focusing upon Equal Protection Cases
    Authors: 陳懿宏
    Chen, Yi-Hung
    Contributors: 廖元豪
    Liao, Yuan-Hao
    陳懿宏
    Chen, Yi-Hung
    Keywords: 美國法
    違憲審查基準
    具殺傷力合理審查基準
    會咬人的合理審查基準
    三重違憲審查基準
    平等權
    Standards of review in the USA
    Standards of review
    Rational-basis review with bite
    Three-tiered judicial
    Equal Protectiuon
    Date: 2021
    Issue Date: 2021-03-02 14:35:45 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 美國聯邦最高法院在平等權保護的領域中，原本已透過諸多的案件逐步地發展出三重違憲審查基準，分別為合理審查基準、中度審查基準與嚴格審查基準。然而近期卻在原先穩固的三重審查基準下，出現了一些表面上採用合理審查基準，但違憲審查結果卻是宣告法令失效的判決，學說上稱其為具殺傷力的合理審查基準，亦即表面上是採用合理審查基準，但實際上違憲審查的內容和結果卻比傳統合理審查基準更為嚴格，亦與中度審查基準不同。而如此違憲審查基準的異變，似乎掏空了原本所建立的穩固三重審查基準，不僅造成審查基準適用上的混亂，違背了適用三重違憲審查基準的規則，也破壞了司法違憲審查的可預測性。不過相對地，美國聯邦最高法院之所以會發展出具殺傷力的合理審查基準，正式為了彌補原本三重審查基準於違憲審查制度內的僵化與其所無法解決的問題。
    本研究旨在探討具殺傷力合理審查基準的內涵以及其對整個違憲審查制度的影響，將分別分析具殺傷力合理審查基準相較於傳統合理審查基準的不同之處；在何種條件將較容易觸發具殺傷力的合理審查基準；具殺傷力合理審查基準是否僅為偽裝的中度審查基準；具殺傷力合理審查基準在美國違憲審查制度中造成了何種不利影響；相對地，其彌補了何種三重違憲審查基準的缺失。
    本文主張：具殺傷力合理審查基準與傳統合理審查基準、中度審查基準皆不同，是一獨立的新興違憲審查基準，雖然其將破壞三重違憲審查基準的規則性，降低司法可預測性，但同時得於避免建立新的嫌疑分類下，達到消除多元化焦慮並使該受平等保護的群體不受歧視。
    The U.S. Supreme Court has gradually developed three-tiered judicial review in equal protection and substantive due process cases. The three-tiered judicial review includes rational basis review, intermediate level review, and strict review. However, recently some cases employ a searching scrutiny under the guise of traditional rational basis review; that is, to employ rational basis with bite. In each of these cases, the Court purported to apply the rational basis test, and yet it invalidated legislation which it certainly would have upheld under traditional analysis. Rational basis with bite, therefore, fosters lower court confusion as to what version of the rational basis test to apply in any given case. In addition, Justices, including those on the Supreme Court, could sit as a Superlegislature, usurping legislative power at a great cost to the majoritarian process. On the contrary, rational basis with bite also solves the problem in three-tiered judicial review.
    The purpose of the study is to explore the content of rational basis with bite, and its influence in judicial review. The study analyzes the following thesis: the difference between rational basis review and rational basis review with bite; the critical factors that triggers rational basis review with bite; whether the rational basis review with bite is the guise of intermediate review; the positive and negative effects caused by rational basis review with bite.
    This study proposes that rational basis review with bite is different from rational basis review and intermediate review. Although rational basis review with bite may cause negative effects, it is able to prevent establishing new suspect classification. Meanwhile, it could also diminish the pluralism anxiety and protect those who should be under equal protection from discrimination.
    Reference: 一、中文部分
    （一）專書
    林子儀（1999），言論自由的限制與雙軌理論，臺北市：元照。

    法治斌（2003），法治國家與表意自由，臺北市：正典。

    湯德宗（2009），違憲審查基準體系建構初探—「階層式比例原則」構想，臺北市：新學林。

    （二）期刊
    吳信華（2012），憲法訴訟法綜合研習——釋憲程序的審理:第五講 釋憲案件的審理，月旦法學教室，120期，頁42-52。

    法治斌（1981），憲法保障人民財產權與其他權利之標準，政大法學評論，23期，頁1-26。

    陳宜倩（2004），判決先例拘束原則，月旦法學教室，15期，頁121-124。

    黃昭元（2003），純男性軍校與性別歧視──評United States v. Virginia 一案判決，歐美研究，33卷3期，頁461-539。

    黃昭元（2004），憲法權利限制的司法審查標準：美國類型化多元標準模式的比較分析，臺大法學論叢，33卷3期，頁45-148。

    賈文宇（2017），司法違憲審查中的證據品質與事理觀點—從證據法角度出發的美國經驗與臺灣借鏡，中研院法學期刊，20期，頁251-308。

    廖元豪（1996），美國「種族優惠性差別待遇」(Racial Affirmative Action)合憲性之研究 ─ 兼論平等原則之真義，東吳大學法律學報，9卷2期，頁1-44。

    廖元豪（2014），革命即將成功，同志仍須努力──簡評美國聯邦最高法院同性婚姻之判決，月旦法學雜誌，224期，頁20-37。

    廖元豪（2008），高深莫測，抑或亂中有序？──論現任大法官在基本性權利案件中的「審查基準」，中研院法學期刊，2期，頁211-274。

    （三）碩士論文
    高敬棠（2020），論稅法之違憲審查基準——以平等爭議為中心，國立臺北大學法律學研究所碩士論文。

    二、外文部分
    （一）專書（Books）
    Benjamin F. Wright. 1942. The Growth of The American Constitutional Law. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company Press.

    Gerald Gunther. 1991. Constitutional Law. 12th ed. Westbury, NY: Foundation Press.

    Germaine Greer. 1971. The Female Eunuch. New York, NY: MacGraw-Hill Company Press.

    Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. 2003. Merriam-Webster`s Collegiate Dictionary. 11 th ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated Press.

    Robert D. Putnam. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Press.

    （二）期刊論文（Journal Articles）
    Alex Reed. 2013. Pro-Business or Anti-Gay? Disguising LGBT Animus As Economic Legislation, 9 Stan. J. Civ. Rts. & Civ. Liberties 153: 153-212.

    Andrew Koppelman. 2010. DOMA, Romer, and Rationality, 58 Drake L. Rev. 923: 932-950.

    Daniel O. Conkle. 2014. Evolving Values, Animus, and Same-Sex Marriage, 89 Ind. L.J. 27: 27-42.

    David O. Stewart. 1985. A Growing Equal Protection Clause?, 71(10) A.B.A. J. 108: 108-120.

    Gayle Lynn Pettinga. 1987. Rational Basis with Bite: Intermediate Scrutiny by Any Other Name, 62 Ind. L.J. 779: 779-803.

    Gerald Gunther. 1972. Foreword: In Search of Evolving Doctrine on A Changing Court: A Model for A Newer Equal Protection, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 1: 1-48 .

    Harvard Law Review. 2013. The Benefits of Unequal Protection, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1348, 1348-1369.

    James B. Thayer. 1893. The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law, 7 Harv. L. Rev. 129: 129-156.

    Jeffrey D. Jackson. 2011. Putting Rationality Back into the Rational Basis Test: Saving Substantive Due Process and Redeeming the Promise of the Ninth Amendment, 45 U. Rich. L. Rev. 491: 491-548.

    Jeffrey H. Blattner. 1981. The Supreme Court`s “Intermediate” Equal Protection Decisions: Five Imperfect Models of Constitutional Equality, 8 Hastings Const. L.Q. 777: 777-842.

    Jeffrey M. Shaman. 1975. 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 Hastings Const L.Q. 153: 153-178.

    Jennifer Jolly-Ryan. 2017. Ebolamania and Equal Protection of Health Care Workers Under Rational Basis with Bite Review, 120 W. Va. L. Rev. 576: 576-627.

    Jeremy B. Smith. 2005. The Flaws of Rational Basis with Bite: Why the Supreme Court Should Acknowledge Its Application of Heightened Scrutiny to Classifications Based on Sexual Orientation, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 2769: 2769-2814.

    Jospeh Tussman, Jacobus tenBroek. 1949. The Equal Protection of the Laws, 37 Calif. L. Rev. 341: 341-381.

    Katherine Erickson. 2017. Harvey Milk and Judicial Review: The End of Rational Basis with Bite, and LGBT Schools, Too?, 41 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 143: 143-179.

    Kathleen M. Sullivan. 2002. Constitutionalizing Women`s Equality, 90 Cal. L. Rev. 735: 735-764.

    Kenji Yoshino. 2011. The New Equal Protection, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 747: 747-803.

    Kenji Yoshino. 2013. Why the Court Can Strike Down Marriage Restrictions Under Rational-Basis Review, 37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 331: 331-337.

    Linda C. McClain. 2013. From Romer v. Evans to United States v. Windsor: Law as a Vehicle for Moral Disapproval in Amendment 2 and the Defense of Marriage Act, 20 Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy 351: 351-478.

    Louis Lusky. 1982. Footnote Redux: A Carolene Products Reminiscence, 82 Colum. L. Rev. 1093: 1093-1105.

    Marc P. Florman. 2012. The Harmless Pursuit of Happiness: Why "Rational Basis with Bite" Review Makes Sense for Challenges to Occupational Licenses, 58 Loy. L. Rev. 721: 721-771.

    R. Randall Kelso. 2002. Standards of Review Under the Equal Protection Clause and Related Constitutional Doctrines Protecting Individual Rights: The "Base Plus Six" Model and Modern Supreme Court Practice, 4 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 225: 225-259.

    R. Randall Kelso. 1995. Three Years Hence: An Update on Filling Gaps in the Supreme Court`s Approach to Constitutional Review of Legislation, 36 S. Tex. L. Rev. 1: 1-43.

    Raphael Holoszyc-Pimentel. 2015. Reconciling Rational-Basis Review: When Does Rational Basis Bite?, 90 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 2070: 2070-2117.

    Ray A. Brown. 1927. Due Process of Law, Police Power, and the Supreme Court, 40 Harv. L. Rev. 943: 943-968.

    Richard A. Epstein. 2012. Judicial Engagement with the Affordable Care Act: Why Rational Basis Analysis Falls Short, 19 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 931: 931-957.

    Robert C. Farrell. 1999. Successful Rational Basis Claims in the Supreme Court from the 1971 Term Through Romer v. Evans, 32 Ind. L. Rev. 357: 357-419.

    Robert D. Putnam. 2007. E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century, 30 Scandinavian Pol. Stud. 137: 137-174.

    Sarah Finnane Hanafin. 2011. Legal Shelter: A Case for Homelessness As A Protected Status Under Hate Crime Law and Enhanced Equal Protection Scrutiny, 40 Stetson L. Rev. 435: 435-474.

    Sean C. Doyle. 2014. HIV-Positive, Equal Protection Negative, 81 Geo. L.J. 375: 375-408.

    Steven Menashi, Douglas H. Ginsburg. 2014. Rational Basis with Economic Bite, 8 Nyu J.L. & Liberty 1055: 1055-1104.

    Susannah W. Pollvogt. 2013. Unconstitutional Animus, 81 Fordham L. Rev. 887: 887-937.

    Thomas B. Nachbar. 2017. Rational Basis "Plus", 32 Const. Comment. 449: 449-477.

    Yale Law Journal. 1981. Quasi-Suspect Classes and Proof of Discriminatory Intent: A New Model, 90 Yale L.J. 912: 912-931.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律學系
    104651047
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104651047
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202100379
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Law] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    104701.pdf1309KbAdobe PDF2251View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback