(the textual commitment of house being judge of members doesn’t preclude court Powell v. McCormack from hearing issues about not seating congressmen, only means house judges the three requirements of constitution, and cannot add more: (ceiling not a floor)) shall be judge of its members” not enough of a textual commitment. Only judge the “house three factors: age, citizenship, residency ethical conduct attachment: beyond constitution. And not textually committed to house to decide court: deciding what constitution says: decided those are the only three requirements constitution puts on congressman but then opposite as above… (senate has sole power to try impeachments, the courts cannot review Nixon v. United States impeachment proceedings) delegating some of impeachment proceedings to committee is political question Court says: this is political question: court can’t review senate impeachment proceedigns Textual: has soul to try cases” (BUT powell: just opposite) “senate Lack of judicially manageable standards: what does mean” “try Nothing for to decide if Nixon was tried Judicial shouldn’t interfere in procedure for removing judges Concurrences: should be able to review if congress adhering to procedure and Blackmun), or at least if senate acting in manner seriously threatening to the integrity of the decision (Souter) Seems every judicial review violates the political question factors Text: Marybury not from text Lack of standard: that’s what constitutional questions are all about Policy: policy determinations based on constitution are still policy Avoid disrespect: every time you strike anything down Need for unquestioning adherence: Just what Marbury said you can do Avoid embarrassment: same with Marbury Factros are circular/manipulatiable: but there: power to punt To remain a-political: remain good in public eye spectrum of political question left: complete deference to congress/prez (veto power, pardons, senate impeachment it seems Nixon v. United States) right: no deference (segregation laws by congress; equal protection it seems US term limtis) most questions: middle ground hypo: if senate flipped a coin on impeachment: seems court would interfere: (Suiter: Nixon Concurrance)
Powell v. McCormack (the textual commitment of house being judge of members doesn’t preclude court from hearing issues about not seating congressmen, only means house judges the three requirements of constitution, and cannot add more: (ceiling not a floor)) “house shall be judge of its members” not enough of a textual commitment. Only judge the three factors: age, citizenship, residency ethical conduct attachment: beyond constitution. And not textually committed to house to decide court: deciding what constitution says: decided those are the only three requirements constitution puts on congressman but then opposite as above… Nixon v. United States (senate has sole power to try impeachments, the courts cannot review impeachment proceedings) delegating some of impeachment proceedings to committee is political question Court says: this is political question: court can’t review senate impeachment proceedigns Textual: “senate has soul to try cases” (BUT powell: just opposite) Lack of judicially manageable standards: what does “try mean” Nothing for to decide if Nixon was tried Judicial shouldn’t interfere in procedure for removing judges Concurrences: should be able to review if congress adhering to procedure and Blackmun), or at least if senate acting in manner seriously threatening to the integrity of the decision (Souter) Seems every judicial review violates the political question factors Text: Marybury not from text Lack of standard: that’s what constitutional questions are all about Policy: policy determinations based on constitution are still policy Avoid disrespect: every time you strike anything down Need for unquestioning adherence: Just what Marbury said you can do Avoid embarrassment: same with Marbury Factros are circular/manipulatiable: but there: power to punt To remain a-political: remain good in public eye spectrum of political question left: complete deference to congress/prez (veto power, pardons, senate impeachment it seems Nixon v. United States) right: no deference (segregation laws by congress; equal protection it seems US term limtis) most questions: middle ground hypo: if senate flipped a coin on impeachment: seems court would interfere: (Suiter: Nixon Concurrance)
Constitutional%20Law%20I%20Attack-%20Smith-%20Spring%202014.docx