RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      미국헌법상 개정금지조항에 관한 연구

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A103027117

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      In this paper, I probe some issues on entrenchment provisions, which are not actually changed by any type of constitutional amendment, in the U.S. Constitution. There are two provisions in the U.S. Constitution that literally did prohibit amendment. One of both is the Article V declaration that “no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.” The other is the Article Ⅵ provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
      In part Ⅱ of this paper, I will overview the meaning and the theoretical foundations of entrenchment provision, and analysis types of entrenchment provisions. And then, part Ⅲ will review the history, intention and contents in detail of particular entrenchment clause respectively.
      As a result, this introductory study newly raised, as a next project that should be undertaken, the most critical issue of whether the constitutional entrenchment could be justified against the argument that entrenchment clauses could undermine the participatory values of democracy.
      번역하기

      In this paper, I probe some issues on entrenchment provisions, which are not actually changed by any type of constitutional amendment, in the U.S. Constitution. There are two provisions in the U.S. Constitution that literally did prohibit amendment. O...

      In this paper, I probe some issues on entrenchment provisions, which are not actually changed by any type of constitutional amendment, in the U.S. Constitution. There are two provisions in the U.S. Constitution that literally did prohibit amendment. One of both is the Article V declaration that “no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.” The other is the Article Ⅵ provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
      In part Ⅱ of this paper, I will overview the meaning and the theoretical foundations of entrenchment provision, and analysis types of entrenchment provisions. And then, part Ⅲ will review the history, intention and contents in detail of particular entrenchment clause respectively.
      As a result, this introductory study newly raised, as a next project that should be undertaken, the most critical issue of whether the constitutional entrenchment could be justified against the argument that entrenchment clauses could undermine the participatory values of democracy.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 정종섭, "헌법학원론 제7판" 박영사 2012

      2 김학성, "헌법학원론" PNC(피앤씨미디어) 2015

      3 권영성, "헌법학원론" 법문사 2011

      4 김철수, "헌법학개론" 박영사 2006

      5 정만희, "헌법개정조항의 개정필요성에 관한 검토" 한국공법학회 39 (39): 395-424, 2010

      6 유정복, "헌법개정의 한계에 관한 연구" 원광대학교 법학연구소 8 : 1986

      7 김선택, "헌법개정의 한계에 관한 고찰" 법조협회 36 (36): 1987

      8 김선화, "헌법개정의 절차적 방법론 - 헌법개정안의 형성과정을 중심으로 -" 한국헌법학회 16 (16): 265-298, 2010

      9 오호택, "헌법개정의 절차와 헌법개정의 가능성" 한국헌법학회 13 (13): 489-511, 2007

      10 서경석, "민주주의와 헌법개정" 법학연구소 12 (12): 1-36, 2009

      1 정종섭, "헌법학원론 제7판" 박영사 2012

      2 김학성, "헌법학원론" PNC(피앤씨미디어) 2015

      3 권영성, "헌법학원론" 법문사 2011

      4 김철수, "헌법학개론" 박영사 2006

      5 정만희, "헌법개정조항의 개정필요성에 관한 검토" 한국공법학회 39 (39): 395-424, 2010

      6 유정복, "헌법개정의 한계에 관한 연구" 원광대학교 법학연구소 8 : 1986

      7 김선택, "헌법개정의 한계에 관한 고찰" 법조협회 36 (36): 1987

      8 김선화, "헌법개정의 절차적 방법론 - 헌법개정안의 형성과정을 중심으로 -" 한국헌법학회 16 (16): 265-298, 2010

      9 오호택, "헌법개정의 절차와 헌법개정의 가능성" 한국헌법학회 13 (13): 489-511, 2007

      10 서경석, "민주주의와 헌법개정" 법학연구소 12 (12): 1-36, 2009

      11 Robert Justin Lipkin, "Which Constitution? Who Decides? The Problem of Judicial Supremacy and the Interbranch Solution" 28 : 1055-, 2006

      12 Manfred Zuleeg, "What Holds a Nation Together? Cohesion and Democracy in the United States of America and in the European Union" 45 : 505-, 1997

      13 Richard Stith, "Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: The Extraordinary Power of Nepal’s Supreme Court" 11 : 47-, 1996

      14 Brendon Troy Ishikawa, "Toward a More Perfect Union: The Role of Amending Formulae in the United States, Canadian, and German Constitutional Experiences" 2 : 267-, 1996

      15 Bruce A. Ackerman, "The Storrs Lectures: Discovering the Constitution" 93 : 1013-, 1984

      16 Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man" POLITICAL WRITINGS 1989

      17 William E. Forbath, "The Politics of Constitutional Design: Obduracy and Amendability? A Comment on Ferejohn and Sager" 81 : 1965-, 2003

      18 James E. Fleming, "The Missing Selves in Constitutional Self-Government" 71 : 1789-, 2003

      19 Steven P. Croley, "The Majoritarian Difficulty: Elective Judiciaries and the Rule of Law" 62 : 689-, 1995

      20 Gunnar Beck, "The Idea of Human Rights Between Value Pluralism and Conceptual Vagueness" 25 : 615-, 2007

      21 Eric Alan Isaacson, "The Flag Burning Issue: A Legal Analysis and Comment" 23 : 535-, 1990

      22 Akhil Reed Amar, "The Consent of the Governed: Constitutional Amendment Outside Article V" 94 : 457-, 1994

      23 Robert J. Delahunty, "The Battle of Mars and Venus: Why do American and European Attitudes Toward International Law Differ?" 4 : 11-, 2006

      24 PETER SUBER, "THE PARADOX OF SELF-AMENDMENT: A STUDY OF LOGIC, LAW, OMNIPOTENCE, AND CHANGE" 1990

      25 A. Christopher Bryant, "Stopping Time: The Pro-Slavery and “Irrevocable” Thirteenth Amendment" 26 : 501-, 2003

      26 Max Farrand, "RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787" 1911

      27 Elai Katz, "On Amending Constitutions: The Legality and Legitimacy of Constitutional Entrenchment" 29 : 251-, 1996

      28 Brannon P. Denning, "Means to Amend: Theories of Constitutional Change" 65 : 155-, 1997

      29 Neal S. Manne, "Good Intentions, New Inventions, and Article V Constitutional Conventions" 58 : 131-, 1979

      30 Donald P. Kommers, "German Constitutionalism: A Prolegomenon" 40 : 837-, 1991

      31 DAVID E. KYVIG, "EXPLICIT AND AUTHENTIC ACTS: AMENDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION 1776-1995" 1996

      32 JOHN R. VILE, "ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, AND AMENDING ISSUES 1789-2010" 2010

      33 R. George Wright, "Could a Constitutional Amendment Be Unconstitutional?" 22 : 741-, 1991

      34 James E. Fleming, "Constructing the Substantive Constitution" 72 : 211-, 1993

      35 Samuel Issacharoff, "Constitutionalizing Democracy in Fractured Societies" 82 : 1861-, 2004

      36 Cass R. Sunstein, "Constitutionalism and Secession" 58 : 633-, 1991

      37 Richard Albert, "Constitutional Handcuffs" 42 : 663-, 2010

      38 Burt Neuborne, "Constitutional Court Profile: The Supreme Court of India" 1 : 475-, 2003

      39 George Mader, "Binding Authority: Unamendability in the United States Constitution—A Textual and Historical Analysis" 99 : 841-, 2016

      40 AKHIL REED AMAR, "AMERICA’S CONSTITUTION: A BIOGRAPHY" 2005

      41 김일환, "6ㆍ10 민주항쟁의 단초로서 4ㆍ13 호헌조치에 관한 憲法史的 硏究" 법학연구소 20 (20): 411-440, 2008

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2028 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2022-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2019-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2016-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2012-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2011-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2010-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 FAIL (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2009-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2008-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2007-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보2차) KCI등재후보
      2006-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2005-05-18 학술지등록 한글명 : 미국헌법연구
      외국어명 : Study on The American Constitution
      KCI등재후보
      2005-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2004-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 FAIL (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2003-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.68 0.68 0.68
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.73 0.72 0.798 0.1
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼