Understanding Political Question Doctrine

The United States governmental system, as framed by the Constitution when the nation itself was founded, is designed as a system of checks and balances, which is to say that the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of federal government are intended to serve as watchdogs over one another, as a means of ensuring that one branch does not gain or exert too much force over another branch, therefore keeping a balance of power within the American government on a national level (Wiecek, 1972). Within this hierarchy exists the Political Question Doctrine, which was developed by the Supreme Court during its early formative years. Exactly how and why this doctrine came about, exists, and is put into practice is an interesting legal examination, as well as an important lesson in the regulation of power and its prudent use in government.

Essentially, Political Question Doctrine centers on the concept that public business, which is to say the business carried on by the mechanism of government, is to be overseen and regulated by the legislative, rather than the judicial branch, i.e. the court system (Wiecek, 1972). What this serves to accomplish is to protect the judiciary from political entanglements and to keep the courts impartial by ensuring that court decisions will not be swayed by the possibility that political gain or loss could be realized by a court when it rules in a certain way. Quite literally, it can be said that in this sense, Political Question Doctrine is a balance of power within Constitutional lines personified.

Political Question Doctrine has manifested itself in many important ways in the literal centuries since the Supreme Court first invoked it. Possibly one of the most telling instances of the value and practice of Political Question Doctrine can be seen in situations where the Supreme Court has declined to rule on issues that would impact members of lower courts, thereby avoiding a conflict of interest and the influence of politics on law. A classic example of this involved the invocation of Political Question Doctrine on the issue of the impeachment of a judge in Nixon v. United States.

At the heart of the Political Question Doctrine lies one essential issue that must not be overlooked- without such protections in place, the governmental system of the United States, so carefully balanced by the framers of the Constitution, could be destroyed if the judiciary became entangled in the issues of politics, for within that realm, the power and influence of politicians could be used to quite literally hijack the legal system of the US. By using the doctrine, a nonpartisan judiciary, at least in spirit, can be maintained.

Ultimately, in fairness, the validity of Political Question Doctrine can be questioned due to the simple fact that in the case of the Supreme Court, as an example, the members of that court itself are appointed by the President of the United States- hardly an atmosphere that would breed impartiality. Conversely, however, it can be argued that the Doctrine itself could lead to impartiality, based on the fact that the President would have no distinct advantage in appointing a given individual to the Court, if in fact the Court had no influence in political matters.

As with so many other legal issues, the validity of Legal Question Doctrine is not absolute; this being said, however, the Doctrine, by all appearances, is vital to the continued separation of powers within the government and the preservation of Constitutional mandates.
References

Wiecek, W. M. (1972). The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.