TITLE

THE LOST HISTORY OF THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE

AUTHOR(S)
GROVE, TARA LEIGH
PUB. DATE
December 2015
SOURCE
New York University Law Review;Dec2015, Vol. 90 Issue 6, p1908
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
This Article challenges the conventional narrative about the political question doctrine. Scholars commonly assert that the doctrine, which instructs that certain constitutional questions are "committed" to Congress or to the executive branch, has been part of our constitutional system since the early nineteenth century. Furthermore, scholars argue that the doctrine is at odds with the current Supreme Court's view of itself as the "supreme expositor" of all constitutional questions. This Article calls into question both claims. The Article demonstrates, first, that the current political question doctrine does not have the historical pedigree that scholars attribute to it. In the nineteenth century, "political questions" were not constitutional questions but instead were factual determinations made by the political branches that courts treated as conclusive in the course of deciding cases. Second, when the current doctrine was finally created in the mid-twentieth century, the Supreme Court used it to entrench, rather than to undermine, the Court's emerging supremacy over constitutional law. Under the current doctrine, the Court asserts for itself the power to decide which institution decides any constitutional question. With control over that first-order question, the Court can conclude not only that an issue is textually committed to a political branch but also that an issue is committed to the Court itself. This analysis turns on its head the assumption of scholars that the current doctrine is at odds with judicial supremacy. The modern political question doctrine is a species of--not a limitation on--judicial supremacy.
ACCESSION #
111832527

 

Related Articles

  • UNITED STATES V. RODRIQUEZ AND CARACHURI-ROSENDO V. HOLDER: SHEDDING LIGHT ON THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL TERM ISSUE IN UNITED STATES V. SIMMONS. DETWILER, CHRISTOPHER R. // North Carolina Law Review;May2012, Vol. 90 Issue 4, p1147 

    The article focuses on the significant consequences of the Maximum Potential Term Issue. It states that a uniform approach should be developed by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court that does not vary by state and by statute to avoid further complicated issue. It says that additional...

  • Supreme Arrogation. NOWLIN, JACK WADE // National Review;5/17/2010, Vol. 62 Issue 9, p40 

    The article presents discussion concerning the political philosophy of judicial supremacy within U.S. Constitutional law. Introductory details are given noting the ways in which the balance of powers has manifested itself in the nations history, suggesting that the independent and...

  • THE JURY'S CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGMENT. Chapman, Nathan S. // Alabama Law Review;2015, Vol. 67 Issue 1, p189 

    Despite the early American jury's near-mythical role as a check on overreaching government agents, the contemporary jury's role in constitutional adjudication remains opaque. Should the jury have the right to nullify criminal statutes on constitutional grounds? Should the jury apply...

  • PARTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. Dixon, Rosalind // University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law;Mar2011, Vol. 13 Issue 3, p643 

    The article discusses the court case Frontiero v. Richardson regarding the questioning of the constitutional interpretation and its definition by the Supreme Court of the U.S. with reference to the common law and the democratic constitutional understandings. Partial amendments like the Equal...

  • JUDICIAL BACKLASH OR JUST BACKLASH? EVIDENCE FROM A NATIONAL EXPERIMENT. Fontana, David; Braman, Donald // Columbia Law Review;May2012, Vol. 112 Issue 4, p731 

    When the Supreme Court decides a controversial issue, does it generate a distinctive public backlash ? Or would a similar decision by Congress generate a similar reaction? Surprisingly, although these questions pervade debates over constitutional law, little direct empirical research exists...

  • In the Beginning. Karlan, Pamela S. // Boston Review;Sep/Oct2010, Vol. 35 Issue 5, p7 

    This article discusses the preservation of the U.S. Constitution and the formal amendments that reshaped the fundamental law through the years since its development in 1787. It explores the principles the surround the Constitution including liberty, equality and opportunity. It highlights the...

  • Men, Women and the Constitution.  // America;12/11/1971, Vol. 125 Issue 19, p501 

    The author reflects on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the appointment of property administrators for deceased persons. He explains the judicial body ruled that state governments cannot adopt an automatic preference to men over women in such circumstances. He emphasizes the...

  • SEPARATE, EQUAL, OR SEPARATE-BUT-EQUAL? LAIDLER, PaweĊ‚ // Politeja;2013, Vol. 23, p249 

    There is no doubt that the United States were not created as a purely democratic state. On the one hand, it established basic rules and principles of democratic government such as free elections, sovereignty of the nation, fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals or independent judiciary....

  • Democracy and Renewed Distrust: Equal Protection and the Evolving Judicial Conception of Politics. Ross II, Bertrall L. // California Law Review;Dec2013, Vol. 101 Issue 6, p1565 

    Judicial interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause have undergone a major transformation over the last fifty years. A Supreme Court once suspicious of the democratic losses of discrete and insular minorities, now closely scrutinizes their democratic victories. A Court once active in...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics