Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In United States constitutional law, the political question doctrine holds that 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 the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States, lies within the political, rather than the legal, realm to solve, and judges customarily ...
Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the political question doctrine in controversies arising under the Guarantee Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution (Art.
Pages in category "United States political question doctrine case law" The following 17 pages are in this category, out of 17 total. This list may not reflect recent changes .
The defense's argument rested on the claim that redistricting "requires inherent political choices to be made [which] are inappropriate for the judiciary to make" [2] under the political question doctrine. This rather extreme position posited that even if the entire legislature came forward and admitted to political gerrymandering, it would not ...
Borden (1849), the Court was asked to decide which of two political factions in Rhode Island was the legitimate government of that state. The justices held that they lacked jurisdiction, ruling that the question of whether a state had a republican form of government was a political question that only Congress had the power to decide. [ 3 ]
Because of the political question doctrine and the Court's ruling in the 1939 case of Coleman v. Miller (307 U.S. 433), it remains an open question whether federal courts could assert jurisdiction over a legal challenge to Congress, if Congress were to refuse to call a convention.
(4) The case is a judicable question, not exempted by the political question doctrine; the constitutionality of a statute is a question for the courts. The court then presented its affirmative reasoning: (5) When the Constitution provides express procedures, such procedures must be strictly observed.
If the law is unambiguous, then the court must follow it. If the law is ambiguous, however, then the court must proceed to step two. At step two, the Chevron doctrine requires the court to evaluate whether the interpretation of the law that the executive agency proposes is "reasonable" or "permissible". If it is, then the court must accept the ...