Goldwater v. Carter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Goldwater v. Carter | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||||||
| Decided December 13, 1979 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||||||
| The issue at hand, whether President Carter could unilaterally break a defense treaty with the Republic of China without Senate approval, was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition. The case was dismissed. | |||||||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||||||
| Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens |
|||||||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||||||
| Concurrence by: Marshall Concurrence by: Powell Concurrence by: Rehnquist Joined by: Burger, Stewart, Stevens Dissent by: Blackmun (in part) Joined by: White Dissent by: Brennan |
|||||||||||||
| Laws applied | |||||||||||||
| U.S. Const. art. II, sct. II | |||||||||||||
Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case which was the result of a lawsuit filed by Senator Barry Goldwater and other members of Congress challenging the right of President Jimmy Carter to unilaterally nullify the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, which the United States had signed with the Republic of China in order to establish relations with the People's Republic of China. Goldwater and his co-filers claimed that the President required Senate approval to take such an action, under Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, and that, by not doing so, President Carter had acted beyond the powers of his office.
The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument. Justices Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist issued two separate concurring opinions on the case. Rehnquist claimed that the issue concerned how foreign affairs were conducted between Congress and the President, and was essentially political, not judicial; therefore, it was not eligible to be heard by the court. Powell, while agreeing that the case did not merit judicial review, believed that the issue itself, the powers of the President to break treaties without congressional approval, would have been arguable had Congress issued a formal opposition through a resolution to the termination of the treaty (The Senate had drafted such a resolution, but not voted upon it).1 This would have turned the case into a constitutional debate between the executive powers granted to the President against the legislative powers granted to Congress. As the case stood, however, it was simply a dispute between the executive and legislative branches of government, political in nature. Today, the case is considered a textbook example of the political question doctrine in U.S. civil procedure.
Contents |
[edit] Quotes
"Prudential considerations persuade me that a dispute between Congress and the President is not ready for judicial review unless and until each branch has taken action asserting its constitutional authority...The Judicial Branch should not decide issues affecting the allocation of power between the President and Congress until the political branches reach a constitutional impasse. Otherwise, we would encourage small groups or even individual Members of Congress to seek judicial resolution of issues before the normal political process has the opportunity to resolve the conflict."
- Justice Powell in his opinion
"I am aware of the view that the basic question presented by the petitioners in this case is 'political' and therefore nonjusticiable because it involves the authority of the President in the conduct of our country's foreign relations and the extent to which the Senate or the Congress is authorized to negate the action of the President."
- Justice Rehnquist in his concurring opinion
"If the Congress, by appropriate formal action, had challenged the President’s authority to terminate the treaty with Taiwan, the resulting uncertainty could have serious consequences for our country. In that situation, it would be the duty of this Court to resolve the issue."
- Justice Powell in his opinion
"The issue of decisionmaking authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts"
- Justice Brennan in his dissenting opinion
[edit] Conclusion
While throwing out the case of Goldwater v. Carter, the Supreme Court left the question of the constitutionality of the President Carter's action open. Powell and Rehnquist merely questioned the judicial merit of the case itself; they did not explicitly approve Carter's action.2 Moreover, Powell even stated that this could be a valid constitutional issue.3 Article II, Section II of the Constitution merely states that the President cannot make treaties without a Senate majority two-thirds vote. As it stands now, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress.
[edit] External links
- ^ 444 U.S. 996 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
- "Goldwater v. Carter." [2]
- "Goldwater v. Carter." Oyez: U.S. Supreme Court Multimedia. [3]
