English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88987/118697 (75%)
Visitors : 23573410      Online Users : 189
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
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/97392


    Title: 美國憲政史上最重要的釋憲案:馬伯瑞控訴麥迪遜案
    Other Titles: The Landmark Case in the history of the U.S. Constitution: Marbury v. adison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
    Authors: 賀允宜
    Ho, Yun-yi
    Keywords: 禁止令;初審裁判權;履行責任令;上訴裁判權;司法復審權;午夜法官;專有裁判權
    writ of prohibition;Original Jurisdiction;writ of mandamus;Appellate Jurisdiction;Judicial Review;Midnight Judges;Exclusive Jurisdiction
    Date: 2013-11
    Issue Date: 2016-06-02 16:25:56 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 美國的政治體制是根據行政、立法、司法三權分立,互相均衡的理論所建立,憲法中更是明文規定各自的權限。但實際實行時,卻並非如此。黨派利益,意識形態,從立國一開始就是行政與立法部門鬥爭的根源。司法權力的獨立性雖然有憲法條款的保障,但由於聯邦最高法院的大法官們是由總統提名,因此也糾纏在權力與利益的衝突中,很難達到真正的自主。\r 美國聯邦最高法院在1803年所面對的《馬伯瑞控訴麥迪遜案》,一方面顯示出司法權在建國初期,處於不同黨派,及行政與立法爭權中的困境,另一方面則是其裁決的結果,是否能決定此後司法權是否能落實憲法中所賦予的獨特性。此是該案在美國憲政進展史上位處樞紐點的原因。聯邦最高法院首席大法官馬歇爾,在1803年2月24日裁決《馬伯瑞控訴麥迪遜案》時,巧妙利用行政與立法兩權之間的矛盾,採取使「共和黨」及「聯邦黨」都能接受的妥協策略。不但鞏固了經常被行政與立法兩者侵越的司法權,得保持其獨立性,更將理論上的行政、立法、司法三權均衡的建國理論實際化。最重要的是,聯邦最高法院獲得「司法復審權」,可以否決任何違背憲法的立法。它本身成為了憲法的最高維護者。
    The Marbury vs. Madison, a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States of America on February 24, 1803, is a pivot that helped in shaping the future direction of U.S. history. In the beginning of the Republic, both Legislative and Executive branches of the government controlled the political power, while the Judicial branch was purposely neglected. The Congress, through partisan’s control and manipulation, could even pass resolutions to usurp the judicial power to achieve its own agenda. Through the powers endowed by the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court of the U.S. used this case to put a stop to this trend. It reasserted its responsibility to have the power of judicial review to determine whether any law was constitutional or not. If so decided, even the laws passed in the Congress could be invalid if they were deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court of the U.S. The supreme court is thus the ultimate force to uphold the constitutionality of any law. The significance of the Marbury vs. Madison was that it did not only strengthen the judicial power of the Supreme Court of the United States, but also reaffirmed the basic principles of Check and Balance of powers through the three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial.
    Relation: 政治大學歷史學報, 40, 75-100
    The Journal of History
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[政治大學歷史學報 THCI Core ] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    40-3.pdf787KbAdobe PDF273View/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
    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。
    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。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback