Political question

In American Constitutional law, the political question doctrine is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political question. Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable.[1]

A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law. In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine, the issue presented before the Court is usually so specific that the constitution gives all power to one of the coordinate political branches, or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague that the constitution does not even consider it. A court can only decide issues based on law. The constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government. If there is an issue where the court does not have the constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use. When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process. The court will not engage in political disputes.

A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to Congress or the President is a political question, which judges refuse to address.

Contents

Origin

The doctrine has its roots in the historic Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).[2] In that case, Chief Justice John Marshall drew a distinction between two different functions of the Secretary of State. Marshall stated that when the Secretary of State was performing a purely discretional matter, such as advising the President on matters of policy, he was not held to any legally identifiable standards. Therefore, some of the Secretary's actions are unable to be reviewed by a court of law.

The doctrine is grounded in the federal judiciary's desire to avoid inserting itself into conflicts between branches of the federal government. It is justified by the notion that there exist some questions best resolved through the political process, voters approving or correcting the challenged action by voting for or against those involved in the decision.

Leading authority

The leading Supreme Court case in the area of political question doctrine is Baker v. Carr (1962).[3] In the opinion written for Baker, the Court outlined six elements of the political question doctrine. These include:

Other applications

While this is a still rather unsettled doctrine, its application has been settled in a few decided areas. These areas are:

Foreign Affairs and the War Making Power

Amendments to the Constitution

The Guarantee Clause

Impeachment

Political gerrymandering

Important cases discussing the political question doctrine:

References

  1. ^ a b Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2010.
  2. ^ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
  3. ^ Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
  4. ^ Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 212. (1962).
  5. ^ Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 459 (1939) (Black, J., concurring).
  6. ^ Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 223 (1962).
  7. ^ United States Constitution, Article I, Section 2-3.
  8. ^ Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986).

External links