인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
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
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.
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-362-016080993
