지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
On May 15, 2004, the Constitutional Court ruled that while President Roh Moo-hyun had violated election laws, that was insufficient ground for his impeachment. The court said that Mr. Roh had violated Article 9 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractices on two occasions in February 2004. The article compels both elected and career government employees to maintain political neutrality. The Constitutional Court decided that the president had violated Articles 66 and 69 of the Constitution by expressing regret over the National Election Commission's warning to him. The two articles stipulate that a president should abide by and uphold the Constitution. The Court said the third violation was Mr. Roh's Oct. 13 proposal for a national referendum on his presidency, interpreting Article 72 of the Constitution as stipulating that a national referendum can be held only on important policy issues involving foreign affairs, defense and reunification. The court dismissed two other charges: implication of Mr. Roh's aides in corruption cases, and economic mismanagement.
I think that the Court's ruling does not have persuasive argument in that following points of view.
First, is the president a civil servant who falls into the category of civil servants-who need to be politically neutral as defined in the act? The president is the head of the executive branch and hence bears the responsibility of stable policy fulfillment. In order to execute this kind of responsibility, the president, as a political civil servant, needs the support of legislative majority. Hence the president can give his support to a specific political party and ask for support from the people to get legislative majority by expressing his political opinion.
Second, the Constitutional Court sentenced that the president's reaction to the National Election Commission ruling on the violation of election laws was not in line with his duty to abide by the Constitution and election law. But even if his remark was intended to express his discontent over the National Election Commission ruling, it is just expression of his political opinion on the possibility of new interpretation of election laws and on the direction of an amendment of current laws. Thus his remark is neither against the principles of law-governed country nor a violation of his duty to protect the Constitution.
Third, article 72 of the Constitution states, “The president can put issues related to national security such as diplomatic, defense and unification issues to a national referendum if necessary.” A national referendum applies to making decisions on specific national policies. Thus, a national referendum for confidence vote cannot be regarded as issues related to national security. It means that the president is not endowed with exercising the power to call a national referendum for confidence vote. But the president only suggested a national referendum and did not enforce it. Making the suggestion itself is not against the Constitution until making an announcement of a national referendum for confidence vote and of the date of a national referendum.
I think that the Court's ruling does not have persuasive argument in that following points of view.
First, is the president a civil servant who falls into the category of civil servants-who need to be politically neutral as defined in the act? The president is the head of the executive branch and hence bears the responsibility of stable policy fulfillment. In order to execute this kind of responsibility, the president, as a political civil servant, needs the support of legislative majority. Hence the president can give his support to a specific political party and ask for support from the people to get legislative majority by expressing his political opinion.
Second, the Constitutional Court sentenced that the president's reaction to the National Election Commission ruling on the violation of election laws was not in line with his duty to abide by the Constitution and election law. But even if his remark was intended to express his discontent over the National Election Commission ruling, it is just expression of his political opinion on the possibility of new interpretation of election laws and on the direction of an amendment of current laws. Thus his remark is neither against the principles of law-governed country nor a violation of his duty to protect the Constitution.
Third, article 72 of the Constitution states, “The president can put issues related to national security such as diplomatic, defense and unification issues to a national referendum if necessary.” A national referendum applies to making decisions on specific national policies. Thus, a national referendum for confidence vote cannot be regarded as issues related to national security. It means that the president is not endowed with exercising the power to call a national referendum for confidence vote. But the president only suggested a national referendum and did not enforce it. Making the suggestion itself is not against the Constitution until making an announcement of a national referendum for confidence vote and of the date of a national referendum.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 탄핵제도의 본질과 기능 및 탄핵사유
Ⅲ. 대통령의 행위가 헌법이나 법률에 위배되는지 여부
Ⅳ. 결론
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문과 연관된 판례 (4)
-
헌법재판소 1996. 2. 29. 선고 93헌마186 전원재판부
가. 대통령(大統領)의 긴급재정경제명령(緊急財政經濟命令)은 국가긴급권(國家緊急權)의 일종으로서 고도(高度)의 정치적(政治的) 결단(決斷)에 의하여 발동(發動)되는 행위(行爲)이고 그 결단(決斷)을 존중하여야 할 필요성이 있는 행위(行爲)라는 의미에서 이른바 통치행위(統治行爲)에 속한다고 할 수 있으나, 통치행위(統治行爲)를 포함하여 모든
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 2004. 5. 14. 선고 2004헌나1 전원재판부
가.헌법재판소는 사법기관으로서 원칙적으로 탄핵소추기관인 국회의 탄핵소추의결서에 기재된 소추사유에 의하여 구속을 받는다. 따라서 헌법재판소는 탄핵소추의결서에 기재되지 아니한 소추사유를 판단의 대상으로 삼을 수 없다. 그러나 탄핵소추의결서에서 그 위반을 주장하는 `법규정의 판단`에 관하여 헌법재판소는 원칙적으로 구속을 받지 않으므로, 청구인이
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 2003. 10. 30. 선고 2002헌라1 전원재판부
가.헌법재판소는 1997. 7. 16. 선고한 96헌라2 국회의원과 국회의장간의 권한쟁의 사건에서 국회의원과 국회의장을 헌법 제111조 제1항 제4호 소정의 `국가기관`에 해당하는 것으로 해석하고 이들의 당사자능력을 인정한 바 있으며, 이러한 입장은
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 2003. 11. 27. 선고 2003헌마694,700(병합),742(병합) 전원재판부
가. 헌법재판소법 제68조 제1항은 ``공권력의 행사 또는 불행사``로 인하여 헌법상 보장된 기본권을 침해받은 자가 헌법소원을 청구할 수 있다고 규정하고 있으므로, 헌법소원의 대상이 되려면 ``공권력의 행사 또는 불행사``에 해당하여야 하는바, 피청구인인 대통령의 발언내용 및 이를 전후한 여러 사정들을 종합하여
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
탄핵결정의 법리적 음미
공법학연구
2004 .05
-
제주도 주민투표 사례에 관한 연구
한국사회와 행정연구
2005 .11
-
대통령 탄핵심판제도의 문제점과 개선방안 : 노무현 · 박근혜 대통령 탄핵심판사건을 중심으로
서강법률논총
2018 .02
-
선거제도에 관한 헌법재판소 판례의 평가
공법학연구
2006 .02
-
개헌절차의 강한 경직성의 문제점과 개선방안
법학연구
2013 .06
-
국가정책에 관한 주민투표의 의의와 법적 규율
행정법연구
2007 .05
-
2007년 태국헌법개정과 헌법재판
외법논집
2008 .01
-
국가정책, 관습헌법과 입법권에 대한 헌법적 고찰 : 신행정수도건설특별법 위헌확인결정 2004헌마554ㆍ566(병합)사건을 중심으로
공법학연구
2004 .12
-
탄핵요건으로서 헌법이나 법률 위반의 중대성 : 헌법 제65조 제1항과 헌법재판소법 제53조 제1항의 해석을 중심으로
저스티스
2017 .08
-
제20대 총선의 투표선택 : 회고적 투표와 세 가지 심판론
한국정치학회보
2016 .09
-
제16대 대통령 선거과정과 결과분석
社會科學
2002 .12
-
탄핵심판제도의 입헌 취지 및 심리 방향성 소고 : 노무현 대통령 탄핵심판사건 결정문을 소재로
법학논총
2017 .01
-
국민주권 실질화를 위한 국민투표 제도 활성화 방안
법학연구
2013 .03
-
대통령 탄핵사유에 대한 소고 - 박근혜 전 대통령 탄핵결정의 탄핵사유를 중심으로 한 판례평석 -
법학논총
2019 .05
-
현직대통령과 대통령당선인의 헌법적 관계
한양법학
2008 .02
-
Death of a President: In Memory of Roh Moo-hyun
Global Asia
2009 .06
-
대통령 권한대행의 대통령 권한행사범위
법학연구
2017 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-362-016080993