Justiciability Doctrine - Revision history

Cmattesich: /* Political Question */

2010-09-07T09:35:13Z

Political Question

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:35, 7 September 2010
Line 79:		Line 79:
	#Impossibility of a court's undertaking an independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of the government		#Impossibility of a court's undertaking an independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of the government
	#Unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made		#Unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made
	#Potentiality for embarrassment from ~~multifarious~~ pronouncements by various departments on one question		#Potentiality for embarrassment from different pronouncements by various departments on one question

	==Notes==		==Notes==
	<references/>		<references/>

Cmattesich: /* Political Question */

2010-09-07T09:33:14Z

Political Question

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:33, 7 September 2010
Line 77:		Line 77:
	#Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it		#Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it
	#Impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion.		#Impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion.
	#Impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of the government		#Impossibility of a court's undertaking an independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of the government
	#Unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made		#Unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made
	#Potentiality for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question		#Potentiality for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question

Cmattesich: /* Political Question */

2010-09-07T09:29:24Z

Political Question

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:29, 7 September 2010
Line 73:		Line 73:
	A court may reject a case if it believes that such a decision is better left to the political process or that exercising judgment would invade the powers of another branch of government. The leading case on the political question doctrine in the United States is Baker v. Carr <ref>Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)</ref>. In Baker v. Carr, voters in TN brought suit challenging a provision enacted in 1901 that apportioned the members of the state General Assembly among the state's 95 counties. Under the 1901 standard, representation had been allocated among counties in accordance with the number of qualified voters in each county. But substantial population growth and redistribution meant that by 1961, legislative districts contained dramatically different numbers of people. The plaintiffs claimed their voting power was unconstitutionally diluted by the continued use of the 1901 apportionment. The court rejected the State's argument that the case involved a political question that should not be decided by the court.		A court may reject a case if it believes that such a decision is better left to the political process or that exercising judgment would invade the powers of another branch of government. The leading case on the political question doctrine in the United States is Baker v. Carr <ref>Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)</ref>. In Baker v. Carr, voters in TN brought suit challenging a provision enacted in 1901 that apportioned the members of the state General Assembly among the state's 95 counties. Under the 1901 standard, representation had been allocated among counties in accordance with the number of qualified voters in each county. But substantial population growth and redistribution meant that by 1961, legislative districts contained dramatically different numbers of people. The plaintiffs claimed their voting power was unconstitutionally diluted by the continued use of the 1901 apportionment. The court rejected the State's argument that the case involved a political question that should not be decided by the court.

	The court concluded that ~~the~~ cases that involve political questions generally have:		The court concluded that cases that involve political questions generally have:
	#Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department		#Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department
	#Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it		#Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it

Cmattesich: /* Political Question */

2010-09-07T09:20:57Z

Political Question

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:20, 7 September 2010
Line 73:		Line 73:
	A court may reject a case if it believes that such a decision is better left to the political process or that exercising judgment would invade the powers of another branch of government. The leading case on the political question doctrine in the United States is Baker v. Carr <ref>Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)</ref>. In Baker v. Carr, voters in TN brought suit challenging a provision enacted in 1901 that apportioned the members of the state General Assembly among the state's 95 counties. Under the 1901 standard, representation had been allocated among counties in accordance with the number of qualified voters in each county. But substantial population growth and redistribution meant that by 1961, legislative districts contained dramatically different numbers of people. The plaintiffs claimed their voting power was unconstitutionally diluted by the continued use of the 1901 apportionment. The court rejected the State's argument that the case involved a political question that should not be decided by the court.		A court may reject a case if it believes that such a decision is better left to the political process or that exercising judgment would invade the powers of another branch of government. The leading case on the political question doctrine in the United States is Baker v. Carr <ref>Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)</ref>. In Baker v. Carr, voters in TN brought suit challenging a provision enacted in 1901 that apportioned the members of the state General Assembly among the state's 95 counties. Under the 1901 standard, representation had been allocated among counties in accordance with the number of qualified voters in each county. But substantial population growth and redistribution meant that by 1961, legislative districts contained dramatically different numbers of people. The plaintiffs claimed their voting power was unconstitutionally diluted by the continued use of the 1901 apportionment. The court rejected the State's argument that the case involved a political question that should not be decided by the court.

	The court concluded that the cases that involve political questions have:		The court concluded that the cases that involve political questions generally have:
	#Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department		#Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department
	#Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it		#Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it

Cmattesich: /* Political Question */

2010-09-07T09:16:02Z

Political Question

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:16, 7 September 2010
Line 71:		Line 71:

	===Political Question===		===Political Question===
	A court may reject a case if it believes that such a decision is better left to the political process or that exercising judgment would invade the powers of another branch of government. The leading case on the political question doctrine in the United States is Baker v. Carr <ref>Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)</ref>. In Baker v. Carr, voters in TN brought suit challenging a provision enacted in 1901 that apportioned the members of the state General Assembly among the state's 95 counties. Under the 1901 standard, representation had been allocated among counties in accordance with the number of qualified voters in each county. But substantial population growth and redistribution meant that by 1961, legislative districts contained dramatically different numbers of people. The plaintiffs claimed their voting power was unconstitutionally diluted by the continued use of the 1901 apportionment. The court rejected the State's argument that the case involved a political question that should not be decided by the court. The court concluded that the cases that involve political questions have:		A court may reject a case if it believes that such a decision is better left to the political process or that exercising judgment would invade the powers of another branch of government. The leading case on the political question doctrine in the United States is Baker v. Carr <ref>Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)</ref>. In Baker v. Carr, voters in TN brought suit challenging a provision enacted in 1901 that apportioned the members of the state General Assembly among the state's 95 counties. Under the 1901 standard, representation had been allocated among counties in accordance with the number of qualified voters in each county. But substantial population growth and redistribution meant that by 1961, legislative districts contained dramatically different numbers of people. The plaintiffs claimed their voting power was unconstitutionally diluted by the continued use of the 1901 apportionment. The court rejected the State's argument that the case involved a political question that should not be decided by the court.

			The court concluded that the cases that involve political questions have:
	#Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department		#Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department
	#Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it		#Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it

Cmattesich: /* Political Question */

2010-09-07T09:15:23Z

Political Question

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:15, 7 September 2010
Line 71:		Line 71:

	===Political Question===		===Political Question===
	A court may reject a case if it believes that such a decision is better left to the political process or that exercising judgment would invade the powers of another branch of government. The leading case on the political question doctrine in the United States is Baker v. Carr <ref>Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)</ref>. In Baker v. Carr, voters in TN brought suit challenging a provision enacted in 1901 that apportioned the members of the state General Assembly among the state's 95 counties. Under the 1901 standard, representation had been allocated among counties in accordance with the number of qualified voters in each county. But substantial population growth and redistribution meant that by 1961 legislative districts contained dramatically different numbers of people. The plaintiffs claimed their voting power was unconstitutionally diluted by the continued use of the 1901 apportionment. The court rejected the State's argument that the case involved a political question that should not be decided by the court. The court concluded that the cases that involve political questions have:		A court may reject a case if it believes that such a decision is better left to the political process or that exercising judgment would invade the powers of another branch of government. The leading case on the political question doctrine in the United States is Baker v. Carr <ref>Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)</ref>. In Baker v. Carr, voters in TN brought suit challenging a provision enacted in 1901 that apportioned the members of the state General Assembly among the state's 95 counties. Under the 1901 standard, representation had been allocated among counties in accordance with the number of qualified voters in each county. But substantial population growth and redistribution meant that by 1961, legislative districts contained dramatically different numbers of people. The plaintiffs claimed their voting power was unconstitutionally diluted by the continued use of the 1901 apportionment. The court rejected the State's argument that the case involved a political question that should not be decided by the court. The court concluded that the cases that involve political questions have:
	#Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department		#Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department
	#Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it		#Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it

Cmattesich: /* Political Question */

2010-09-07T09:14:45Z

Political Question

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:14, 7 September 2010
Line 71:		Line 71:

	===Political Question===		===Political Question===
	A court may reject a case if it believes that such a decision is better left to the political process or that exercising judgment would invade the powers of another branch of government. The ~~main~~ case on the political question doctrine in the United States is Baker v. Carr <ref>Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)</ref>. In Baker v. Carr, voters in TN brought suit challenging a provision enacted in 1901 that apportioned the members of the state General Assembly among the state's 95 counties. Under the 1901 standard, representation had been allocated among counties in accordance with the number of qualified voters in each county. But substantial population growth and redistribution meant that by 1961 legislative districts contained dramatically different numbers of people. The plaintiffs claimed their voting power was unconstitutionally diluted by the continued use of the 1901 apportionment. The court rejected the State's argument that the case involved a political question that should not be decided by the court. The court concluded that the cases that involve political questions have:		A court may reject a case if it believes that such a decision is better left to the political process or that exercising judgment would invade the powers of another branch of government. The leading case on the political question doctrine in the United States is Baker v. Carr <ref>Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)</ref>. In Baker v. Carr, voters in TN brought suit challenging a provision enacted in 1901 that apportioned the members of the state General Assembly among the state's 95 counties. Under the 1901 standard, representation had been allocated among counties in accordance with the number of qualified voters in each county. But substantial population growth and redistribution meant that by 1961 legislative districts contained dramatically different numbers of people. The plaintiffs claimed their voting power was unconstitutionally diluted by the continued use of the 1901 apportionment. The court rejected the State's argument that the case involved a political question that should not be decided by the court. The court concluded that the cases that involve political questions have:
	#Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department		#Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department
	#Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it		#Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it

Cmattesich: /* Generalized Grievances */

2010-09-07T09:04:59Z

Generalized Grievances

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:04, 7 September 2010
Line 65:		Line 65:

	===Generalized Grievances===		===Generalized Grievances===
	A case must not be too generalized, that is, be particular and not shared by all or almost all citizens.		A case must not be too generalized, that is, it must be particular and not shared by all or almost all citizens.

	===No Third Party Standing===		===No Third Party Standing===

Cmattesich: /* Prudential Limitations */

2010-09-07T09:00:21Z

Prudential Limitations

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:00, 7 September 2010
Line 53:		Line 53:
	In addition to the "cases and controversies" requirement, the courts have fashioned several other discretionary limitations which a court may invoke to refuse to hear to a case. These limitations are not based on Article III of the Constitution. Therefore, Congress may override the court on these issues:		In addition to the "cases and controversies" requirement, the courts have fashioned several other discretionary limitations which a court may invoke to refuse to hear to a case. These limitations are not based on Article III of the Constitution. Therefore, Congress may override the court on these issues:

	The limitations are not based on Article III and subject to congressional override. The court requires that the plaintiff's injury:		The limitations are not based on Article III and are subject to congressional override. The court requires that the plaintiff's injury:

	a) be arguably within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statutory or constitutional provision at issue and		a) be arguably within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statutory or constitutional provision at issue and

Cmattesich: /* Prudential Limitations */

2010-09-07T08:59:10Z

Prudential Limitations

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:59, 7 September 2010
Line 53:		Line 53:
	In addition to the "cases and controversies" requirement, the courts have fashioned several other discretionary limitations which a court may invoke to refuse to hear to a case. These limitations are not based on Article III of the Constitution. Therefore, Congress may override the court on these issues:		In addition to the "cases and controversies" requirement, the courts have fashioned several other discretionary limitations which a court may invoke to refuse to hear to a case. These limitations are not based on Article III of the Constitution. Therefore, Congress may override the court on these issues:

	not based on Article III and subject to congressional override ~~require~~ that the plaintiff's injury		The limitations are not based on Article III and subject to congressional override. The court requires that the plaintiff's injury:

	a) be arguably within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statutory or constitutional provision at issue and		a) be arguably within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statutory or constitutional provision at issue and