美國司法違憲審查正當性論辯脈絡之分析

Abstract

美國法政學界對於司法違憲審查正當性的論辯，自制憲迄今已逾兩百餘年，且尚無停歇之跡象。從脈絡上綜合觀察，這些論辯大致上集中於司法違憲審查的「制度創設」、「制度運作」與「制度功效」等焦點，從而形成三大脈絡。二十世紀後半，隨著司法權日興，相關論辯亦有日趨熱絡之勢。遺憾的是，論者在論辯之際，對於正當性的意義和類型，卻往往未加以界定，以致論辯常有失焦之虞。本文首先從學術觀點定義正當性，指出正當性兼具學理（規範）與實務（經驗）意涵，並釐出若干正當性基本類型，以為後續分析之基礎。其次，針對美國三大脈絡之各種論辯，分別進行焦點之歸納，試圖就各種重要理論之論證邏輯加以掌握，並依據本文對正當性意涵與類型之界定，分別就三大論辯脈絡，進行分析與批判。再者，本文將進一步從實務經驗資料檢視美國各界對於司法違憲審查制度之接受度，以求學理與經驗之相互印證。最後，針對整個論辯脈絡進行總體分析與批判，並提出本文之發現與觀察。

From the outset of the framing of the Constitution, the debate on the legitimacy of judicial review in American legal and political scholarship has been going on over two hundred years, and nowadays, there is no sign of it coming to an end. As far as the context of the debate is concerned, most arguments focus on three issues about judicial review, namely, the institutional establishment, the institutional operation, and the institutional effect. This article calls it a tripartite debate. In light of the rise of judicial power from the second half of the 20th century, the trend of the debate has become prevalent. It is to be regretted that because commentators paid little attention to the definition of legitimacy, most of arguments just illuminated their own views. This article is divided into seven parts. After the introduction, the second part focuses on the definition and the type of legitimacy, and clarifies the context of American tripartite debate so as to lay the foundation for the subsequent analysis. In parts three to five, we will respectively discuss and analyze the legitimacy debate over the institutional establishment, the institutional operation, and the institutional effect of American judicial review. Then, in the sixth part, we will empirically examine the diffuse support of judicial review in American society according to public opinion. Finally, this article will make an overall criticism on the tripartite debate, and draw several conclusions.