Con Law -- I Need help with Political Questions Forum

[trepinator]

So I have the six factors for determining what a political question is, but i don't really understand what they are. Can help and explain them to me or provide some examples? Any help would be greatly appreciated!!!

6 factors, if anyone is present, then it is a PQ
a.Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to other branches
i.Example: Impeachment of the president is the responsibility of the Senate – Nixon v. US
b. Lack of manageable standards for judicial resolution
c. Impossibility of deciding without and initial policy determination that is not under judicial discretion
d. The impossibility of resolving the issue without showing a lack of respect for other branches of the government
e. The adherence to a political decision that was already made
f. The potential of embarrassing other departs from multifarious pronouncements.

[Hipster but Athletic]

Your best bet is to read caselaw citing Baker v. Carr, brah.

This case goes through the first four factors in detail:
218 P.3d 358

hope it helps.

[2807]

So I have the six factors for determining what a political question is, but i don't really understand what they are. Can help and explain them to me or provide some examples? Any help would be greatly appreciated!!!

6 factors, if anyone is present, then it is a PQ
a.Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to other branches
i.Example: Impeachment of the president is the responsibility of the Senate – Nixon v. US
b. Lack of manageable standards for judicial resolution
c. Impossibility of deciding without and initial policy determination that is not under judicial discretion
d. The impossibility of resolving the issue without showing a lack of respect for other branches of the government
e. The adherence to a political decision that was already made
f. The potential of embarrassing other departs from multifarious pronouncements.

Remember, the job of the court is to interpret law.
These "justiciable" factors limit the court's ability to hear a case.
If the court cannot give a final resolution to an actual "case or controversy" it is likely due to one or more of these factors.

Put that list in context. Does it make sense now?
Your list is solid. It kind of answers itself if you understand the context.

For a ConLaw exam, you will likely need to address the initial fundamentals and "justiciability" is one of them.
[standing, moot, ripe, etc... are the others]

So, you would have to start your essay with : (IRAC)
I- Whether X has standing.... R, A, C
I- Whether the issue is ripe... R, A, C
I- Whether the issue is Justiciable...R, A, C

When in doubt, use IRAC. The structure of IRAC will walk you through the analysis.
State the issue, state the Rule (you have already, above). Apply your facts to your rule.
State a conclusion consistent with that application of facts-to-rule.

The end.

[2807]

Ok, lastly....
Read this, and go in peace.

Certain issues are non-justiciable and will not be decided by federal courts even if all other jurisdictional requirements and constitutional prerequisites are met, because courts are not competent to resolve the subject matter. The Court has discussed six “factors,” which can be divided into three categories.

1. Constitutional Considerations:
The text of the Constitution expressly commits the resolution of some issues to the political branches (e.g. impeachment; age, residency, citizenship qualifications of members of Congress).

2. Functional Considerations:
Courts are incapable of establishing standards to resolve the conflict because the matter involves an initial policy determination unsuited to courts (e.g. injunctions against discretionary acts of political branches; establishing the meaning of “republican form of government”).

3. Prudential Considerations:
Political “hot potatoes” where unusual circumstances require courts not to inject themselves into the matter because the resolution of the issue would “necessarily express a lack of respect due a co-ordinate branch,” requires an “unusual need to adhere to a political decision already made,” or presents the “potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various branches on the same matter” (e.g. disputes between members of Congress or between the President and other executive branch officers; questions of war and peace).


REMEMBER: Not all questions are non-justiciable just because they are politically controversial.
If the argument is made, it usually involves foreign and diplomatic relations, military or national security issues, intra-branch disputes, discretionary political matters, direct conflicts between the political branches, impeachment, or the “guaranty of republican form of government” clause.