台灣自解嚴以後，社會運動逐漸蓬勃，爾後伴隨著立法院之全面改選，許多保障弱勢的議題倡導，便以將理念形成法案、將法案推動通過的方式進行。然而，台灣承襲自歐陸的「法實證主義」傳統，使法學界向來依循著「法釋義學」的典範發展，雖是追求平等、穩定等法治國理念下的法律體系時所不可或缺，然而也可能忽略了法律與社會間的互動關係。法律的制定與執行，如果未將社會因素納入考慮，則對於法律的成效所進行事前或事後的評估將可能失真。就此，本文以個案研究的方式，擇取煙品標示、計程車駕駛及性剝削言論等三項均為近年來社會運動倡導下所完成之立法，及其因執行面之爭議所引發的大法官解釋，作為探討素材。由這三號解釋中，我們可發現大法官於進行違憲審查時，因傳統法學論證模式及缺乏評估工具所可能導致與社會現實間的距離。此外，由「不同意見書」可知少數的大法官也逐漸意識到固有法學典範之侷限，而嘗試向社會實境探詢。本文的探討其實是在回應「徒法不足以自行」的老問題，而藉此所耙梳的本土素材，應可使近年來蓬勃社會立法下的成果，取得一個重新檢視的視角，並為促進法律與社會間的對話，略盡拋磚引玉之力。

After the lifting of martial law in Taiwan, social movements increasingly gained strength and then, accompanied by the full-scale Legislative Yuan elections, advocacy of many issues to protect the vulnerable was forming bills from mere ideas. However, social welfare advocacy often reached the end of social legislation. Taiwan’s jurisprudence inherited the tradition from European Continent’s “legal positivism” and often followed the paradigm of “Hermeneutics” which developed the core legal theory and formal validity from the concept and meaning of words and logic. Such a development, however, may more easily ignored other outside systems, especially the interaction between law and social relations. “Society” has its pre-existing and ever-changing structure, because it is formed by the individual; besides, the individual’s response in the face of specific situations and context will always be different from the prediction of “behaviorism.” Under the social structure and context, social policy and social legislation have a more profound interaction than other fields of law. Therefore, we can observe more predicament under the implementation and evaluation of social legislation. Under this consideration, this paper used the method of case study and chose two social legislations of cigarette labeling and taxi driver restriction, which were already reviewed by the constitutional court. We found that both the tradition argument model of jurisprudence and the lack of evaluation tool caused the distance between law interpretation and social reality. In addition, we found a small number of constitutional court judges gradually realized the limitations of the tradition argument model of jurisprudence and tried to inquire about the social reality from the “different opinions.” This papper aimed to react to the old problem of “the law alone is not enough,” but the use of the local material should be allowed to present a perspective of the social legislation in recent years and to promote a dialogue between law and society.