低收入社會救助給付與設籍限制之違憲審查－Saenz v. Roe一案判決之分析

A Judicial Review of the Durational Residency Requirement for Low-Income Social Benefits-An Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's Saenz v. Roe

雷文玫(Wenmay Rei)

設籍限制 ； 遷徙自由 ； 社會救助 ； 聯邦主義 ； durational residency requirement ； right to travel ； low-income social benefit ； federalism

歐美研究

33卷3期（2003 / 09 / 01）

413 - 459

繁體中文

本文根據一九九九年聯邦最高法院對Saenz v. Roe一案之判決，檢視州政府限制新到居民受領低收入社會救助給付時，州民基於聯邦國民基本權所得主張之權利，以及聯邦最高法院介入違憲審查所適用的審查基準。本文認為，此一問題牽動到政治主體的成員，對於「我們／他們」的想像與抉擇，而聯邦最高法院在Saenz案引用權利或豁免權條款所保障的聯邦國民基本權，適用嚴格審查基準，限制州政府在社會福利政策上之主權行使，固然難脫過度保障低收入福利的嫌疑，但透過這樣的連結，也開發了遷徙自由作為聯邦國民基本權的地位在聯邦制度與民主政治的重要意義，並且設定了近年來聯邦最高法院限制州權的一個重要的底線。

This article examines the state government's authority in restricting newly-arrived residents' rights for low-income welfare benefits in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1999 Saenz v. Roe decision, and the standard of judicial review applied. The author argues that, by setting durational residency requirements, the State of California not only limits federal citizens' rights to travel, but also deprives newly-arrived citizens their full rights (?) and membership in the political community of both the United States and the State of California. Given the significance of the right to travel in federalism and democracy, the author further contends that the Supreme Court was correct in applying strict scrutiny in the review of Saenz v. Roe, and that this may establish a baseline in the power struggle between federal and state sovereignty.

1. Amar, A. R.(1996).Did the fourteenth amendment incorporate the bill of rights against the states?.Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy,19,443-449.
2. Amar, A. R.(1992).The bill of rights and the fourteenth amend-ment.Yale Law Journal,101,1193-1284.
3. Aynes, R. L.(1993).On misreading John Bingham and the four-teenth amendment.Yale Law Journal,103,57-104.
4. Brest, P.,Levinson, S.(1992).Process of constitutional deci-sion-making: Cases and materials.Boston, MA:Little Brown and Company.
5. Carens, J. H.,A. Gutmann(Ed.)(1988).Democracy and the welfare state.NJ:Princeton University Press.
6. Curtis, M. K.(1996).Resurrecting the privileges or immunities clause and revising the Slaughter-House Cases without exhuming Lochner: Individual rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.Boston College Law Review,38,1-106.
7. Ellis, N.,Miller, C.(2000).Welfare waiting periods: A public policy analysis of Saenz v. Roe. Stanford Law and Policy Review,11,343-352.
8. Ely, J. H.(1980).Democracy and distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
9. Fullinwider, R.,A. Gutmann(Ed.)(1988).Democracy and the welfare state.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
10. Hirschman, A.O.(1970).Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
11. Katz, M.(1986).In the shadow of poorhouse: A social history of welfare in America.New York:Basic Books.
12. Linz, J. J.(1997).Democracy, mutinationalism and federalism.Paper presented at the Meeting of International Political Science Associationa.
13. Marshall, T.H.(1977).Class, citizenship, and social development.Garden City. New York:Anchor Books.
14. Moon, D.,A. Gutman(Ed.)(1988).Democracy and the welfare state.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
15. Newsom, K. C.(2000).Setting incorporationism straight: A rein-terpretation of the Slaughterhouse cases.Yale Law Journal,109,643-744.
16. Nzelibe, J.(1999).Free movement: A federalist reinterpretation.American University Law Review,49,432-469.
17. Smith, R.(1997).Civil ideals: Conflicting visions of citizenship in U.S. history.New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
18. Stone, G.,Seidman, L.,Sunstein, C.,Tushnet, M.(1996).Constitutional law.Gaithersburg, MD:Aspen Law & Business.
19. Tribe L.(1999).Saenz sans prophecy: Does the privileges or immunities revival portend the future-or reveal the structure of the present?.Harvard Law Review,113,110-198.
20. Tribe, L.(1988).American Constitutional Law.New York:Foundation Press.
21. Tribe, L.(2000).American Constitutional Law.New York:Foundation Press.
22. Walzer, M.(1983).Spheres of justices: A defense of pluralism and equality.New York:Basic Books.
23. Zietlow, R.(2000).University of Pittsburgh Law Review.
24. 吳叡人譯、Benedict Anderson著(1999)。想像的共同體：民族主義的起源與散布。台北:時報文化。
25. 雷文玫(2000)。全民健保合憲性之探討－從美國社會安全法制之合憲性基礎看我國大法官釋字四七二號解釋。政大法學評論，63，105-127。

1. 潘淑滿(2009)。遊民政策與服務的意識形態。臺灣社會工作學刊，7，49-83。
2. 孫迺翊(2008)。歐盟人民社會基本權之保障：以受僱者與非受僱者之遷徙自由與社會給付請求權為例。歐美研究，38(4)，579-636。
3. (2006)。社會救助制度中受救助者的人性尊嚴保障－一個憲政國家興起前後的比較觀察。月旦法學雜誌，136，65-87。