Quicknotes moot judgment on the particular issue has

This preview shows page 37 - 39 out of 635 pages.

We have textbook solutions for you!
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Microeconomics
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter 17 / Exercise 3
Microeconomics
Arnold
Expert Verified
QUICKNOTES MOOT Judgment on the particular issue has previously been decided or settled. Baker v. Carr Resident (P) v. State (D) 369 U.S. 186 (1962). NATURE OF CASE: Action seeking a declaration of the unconstitutionality of a state law and injunctive relief. FACT SUMMARY: Baker (P) alleged that because of population changes since 1901, the 1901 State Apportionment Act was obsolete and unconstitutional, and that the state legislature refused to reapportion itself. Copyright AspenLaw Studydesk, Aspen Publishers, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
We have textbook solutions for you!
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Microeconomics
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter 17 / Exercise 3
Microeconomics
Arnold
Expert Verified
Copyright AspenLaw Studydesk, Aspen Publishers, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business RULE OF LAW The fact that a suit seeks protection of a political right does not mean it necessarily presents a political question. FACTS: [Between 1901 and 1961 Tennessee's population had substantially grown and has been redistributed. Baker (P) alleged that because of the population changes and the state legislature's failure to reapportion voting districts by itself since, the 1901 Apportionment Act was unconstitutional and obsolete. Baker (P) also alleged that because of the makeup of the legislature resulting from the 1901 Act, redress in the form of a state constitutional amendment was difficult or impossible.] ISSUE: Does a constitutional challenge to a state apportionment act present a political question? HOLDING AND DECISION: (Brennan, J.) No. The fact that a suit seeks protection of a political right does not mean it necessarily presents a political question. The primary reason that political questions have been held to be nonjusticiable is the separation of powers. An analysis of any case held to involve a political question will reveal: (1) a history of the issue's management by another governmental branch; (2) a lack of judicially manageable standards for resolving it; (3) the impossibility of deciding the case without an initial policy determination calling for nonjudicial discretion; (4) the impossibility of resolving it without expressing lack of respect due other government branches; (5) an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or (6) the potentiality of embarrassment from a variety of announcements by different governmental departments on one question. The mere fact that a suit seeks protection of a political right does not mean that it involves a political question. The Court cannot reject as involving a political question a real controversy as to whether a certain action exceeded constitutional limits. Here Baker (P) alleges that a state's actions violate his right to equal protection. None of the above-mentioned characteristics of a political question are present. Further, the nonjusticiability of claims arising under the Guarantee Clause can have no bearing on the justiciability of the equal protection claim presented here.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture