The purpose of the political question doctrine is to allow the
power of the Court to deny a case its ruling if they deem it able
to be allocated to another area of jurisdiction or if it lacks
justiciability. In essence, it is the job of the Court to determine
whether particular cases are more pertinent to the federal
judiciary or the elected officials of the legislative or executive
branches of government. However, there have been instances in which
the political question doctrine seems to have been abused. Does the
Supreme Court use the political question doctrine to avoid making
controversial decisions, or is there a principled explanation for
its use? Chief Justice John Marshall contended that when a case
within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction qualifies for review by
constitutional standards the Court is obligated to decide the case
on its merits. But the Court has realized the impracticality of so
rigid an interpretation of the Constitution, especially when a case
threatens to propel it into uncharted political waters. Marshall
himself perceived this dilemma in Marbury v. Madison. It was not
long before a new category of cases appeared that involved
nonjusticiable political questions. The irony of this political
questions doctrine is that its existence demonstrates beyond any
reasonable doubt the excessive political nature of the judicial
process. If the justices were to consider, implicitly or
explicitly, questions of power and influence, questions affecting
the Court's prestige and status, the judiciary's relationship to
the other branches of the government, and the problem with the
Court's ability to decide a particular case effectively, by any
implication that it decides only "nonpolitical" questions. Thus the
political questions doctrine is not a constitutionally mandated
dividing line between appropriate and inappropriate issues, but
rather a discretionary device to permit the federal courts to avoid
deciding certain inconvenient questions. Its precise scope and
application are difficult to distinguish to some.
In the case of Powell v. McCormack, the use of the political
question doctrine may come across to have been used in an unjust
manner. In Powell v. McCormick, the Court further demonstrated its
determination to narrow the political questions doctrine. In
November 1966, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., a prominently known, black
preacher and political leader, was reelected to Congress by the
Harlem constituency he had served since 1942. Because of
allegations about improper use of congressional funds and other
political misbehavior, the House of Representatives did not permit
Powell to take his seat at the beginning of the Ninetieth Congress
in January 1967, and eventually voted to exclude him. Powell and
some of his supporters filed suit in a federal district court,
claiming that the House could exclude him only if he failed to meet
the requirements of age, citizenship, and residence described in
A1S2 of the Constitution, which he clearly met. Yet it held that
exclusion for reasons other than those prescribed in the
Constitution did not present a nonjusticiable political question.
The Court then held that Powell had been unlawfully excluded.
Powell made other allegations, including that the Sergeant-at-Arms
refused to pay Powell his salary, that the doorkeeper denied Powell
admission into the House chamber, and that the Clerk of the House
threatened that he would refuse to perform services for Powell.
Prior to such, the House alleged that after an investigation of
expenditures of the Committee on Education and Labor, that is when
it was found that Powell had improperly made use of the
Congressional funds. Mr Powell was then removed from his position
as the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor.
The District Court dismissed the petitioner's complaint "for
want of jurisdiction of the subject matter". A panel of the Court
of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, although on somewhat different
grounds, each judge filing a separate opinion. The Supreme Court
later reversed these decisions and stated that the lower courts
were in error when they dismissed the claims. It was also stated
that Powell was unlawfully excluded from the 90th Congress because
he met all the requirements to be in that position according to the
Constitution. McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316 (1819) was a very
influential case in U.S. History. After the First Bank of the
United States had folded in 1811 due to a lack of congressional
support, inflation in the years following the American Revolution
compelled Congress to establish a new national bank. The Second
Bank of the United States was authorized by Congress to help
control the unregulated issuance of currency by state banks. Many
continued to oppose the bank's constitutionality, and Maryland set
an example by imposing a tax on all banks not chartered by the
state. When the U.S. branch bank in Baltimore refused to pay taxes,
Maryland brought suit for collection from the bank. The chartering
of a bank, according to the Court, was a power implied from the
power over federal fiscal operations. Because the state cannot
impede constitutional federal laws, the tax was voted
unconstitutional. The inability to impede in such a manner was
shown to be another form of justiciable political question. One of
the most important decisions in the history of the U.S. Supreme
Court, Marshall's opinion called for a broad interpretation of the
powers of the federal government. The case became the legal
cornerstone of subsequent expansions of federal power, and another
positive implementation of the political question doctrine.
While the political question doctrine has shown to be time
conserving and helpful in many cases, there is one particular case
in which the political question doctrine did a bit of a disservice.
In the case, Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857), political
question was exercised in a different manner than usual. Instead of
the court refusing to reach a decision or hear the case based on
justiciability, the court's decision was based on jurisdiction. Not
only was the case pivotal for political question, but it was also
made a spectacle of criticism of our nation's history of slavery
and racism. Dred Scott, a slave who lived in the free state of
Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to
the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in
hopes of being granted his freedom. Chief Justice Taney, who was an
avid supporter of slavery, believed that Scott not only should
remain a slave, but that he did not classify as a citizen because
he was a black man. Due to all of the controversy and negativity
that arose from the rulings of a harsh and prejudice Justice Taney,
the Dred Scott case is seen to be one of the worst political
decisions in our nation's history. Because the case dealt with an
issue that was laid out in the U.S. Constitution, it was out of the
hands of the court, and into the hands of Congress. Ultimately,
Dred Scott was denied his rights to freedom, which was very
unfortunate. However, the use of the political question doctrine in
Dred Scott v. Sanford was correct and justified. In determining
political question, two major concepts have come about as the
reasoning thereof, those being justiciability and jurisdiction. If
the case is not found to be justiciable or within the jurisdiction
of the Court, it meets the standards laid out by the political
question doctrine, and will not be ruled upon by the Court. Behind
the tests for justiciability are a number of legal doctrines. The
Supreme Court has declared that the doctrines have both
constitutional and prudential components: Some parts are required
by the Constitution, according to the Court's interpretation of
Article III, and some are based on what the Court considers prudent
judicial administration.
This distinction has important consequences for the limits of
judicial power. Congress has the authority to pass laws that
override only the prudential limits of judicial review; it cannot
pass laws that override constitutional limits. Thus, the Supreme
Court has insulated the federal courts from congressional influence
in some but not all areas of justiciability. The question of
justiciability also involves the legal relationship of the parties
in the case, as well as the substance of their dispute. To be found
justiciable, the case must involve parties who have an adversary
controversy between them. Moreover, the issues in the controversy
must be "real and substantial," and therefore more than mere
generalized interests common to the public at large. A related rule
forbids the federal courts to issue advisory opinions. It holds
that they must decline to rule on merely hypothetical or abstract
questions. In addition, they are restricted from taking cases that
address purely political questions, which are beyond management by
the judiciary. Certain state courts do issue advisory opinions on
legal questions. The other area of importance in classifying a case
by political question is the jurisdiction that it falls under. As
is seen in the Dred Scott case, there may be times in which the
case applies directly to or goes against the U.S. Constitution,
which places it in the hands of the executive or legislative
branches of government. In situations like this, it is out of the
Court's control and that matter, as well as those of similar
nature, will not be taken on.