The ‘Political Question’

©2009 drkate

In my earlier article on the First Amendment, 912, and the Continental Congress 2009,  I suggested that Article IV, or the “Guarantee Clause”, was an important underlying principle of protecting our ‘republican form of government’, and could prevent the assault on our current Constitutional Republic by fiat or decree by Congress or the Executive.  Specifically, Article IV Section 4 states:

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

I initially read this to mean that the Federal government cannot move this country to a socialist form of government, because it was required to ensure to each state a government that was a republic.

More Questions

In reading further, however, another layer of assault on our Constitutional Republic is revealed, as the Courts employ the ‘judicial invention’ of the ‘political question’ to avoid court review of the exercise of governmental power:

As with other judicial doctrines created by the Court, the rule is interpretive and self-imposed. It is neither a result of legislation nor a part of the U.S. Constitution, although it appears to emanate from the Constitution’s Separation of Powers. The Court created the political question doctrine as part of the broader concept of justiciability—the issue of whether a matter is appropriate for court review.

The doctrine was first articulated in 1803 by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney:

“federal courts should leave certain constitutional questions to the legislative and executive branches in any matter that is “a political question to be settled by the political power.

Otherwise known as, ‘political process’.  When the We the People Foundation’s petitions for redress under the First Amendment were dismissed by a federal court under the ‘political question’ doctrine, founder Bob Shultz rightly critiqued that the First Amendment rights of American citizens under the U.S. Constitution were not guaranteed, but were instead up for a vote by the very government it was petitioning.

While the Court has not ducked all publicly sensitive issues (see rulings on Abortion and Affirmative Action), the blatant dismissal of  WTP’s First Amendment right is troubling. The Courts would appear to have the discretion to dismiss important public questions, and Constitutional cases,  under the guise of the ‘political question’.  This sounds similar to the use of the judicially invented doctrine of  ‘standing’ to avoid the Constitutional question presented by the eligibility cases.

In the important case  New York v. United States [112 S.Ct. 2408, 2432–2433 (1992)], Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cited Section 4 of Amendment IV as limiting the federal government’s ability to commandeer state officers to implement federal law.  In addition to Gregory v. Ashcroft[ 501 U.S. 452, 463 (1991),

The opinions draw support from a powerful argument for utilizing the guarantee clause as a judicially enforceable limit on federal power (Source: Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism for a Third Century, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (1988)).

The Assault Revealed

Utilizing both the ‘political question’ and the ‘standing’  issue, the Courts seem to be, at their discretion, dismissing key Constitutional questions, including the WTP’s  petitions to the government under the First Amendment and legal proceedings under Articles II  and IV of the Constitution.

It has been implemented over history under the guise of ‘checks and balances’, but appears to be a convenient tool for ‘stacked’ courts to avoid key questions or upsetting the true balance of power right now.  It certainly seems a potential avenue to influence judges.  At the very least it creates a power vacuum into which nefarious politicos readily enter.

The Kerchner v. Obama case, which was discussed extensively here, has not been granted a decision yet by the Court, although it was promised in early August.  This is late by the standards and practices of the Court and by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although Obama has not raised the ‘political question’ in his defense, I am sure he has thought about this argument.  What do you want to bet that the judges in the eligibility cases are thinking about using this tool in ducking a Constitutional question, or delaying until sufficient Supreme Court justices are in place to secure a ‘political resolution’ to the issue?

Indeed, our hapless senators and representatives, the foolish obots, and the democrats continue to insist that ‘the election is over, get over it, he’s our president’, as if our very Constitution was subject to the ballot box.  The judge who dismissed the Hollister case cited ‘twitter’ as definitive proof that Obama had been vetted.

This is the subtle use of the ‘political question’, which now seems applicable to an array of dangers we face as Obama and the democrats nationalize the banking and auto industries, and attempt to do the same with the health care and energy industries.  This is a move to change the fundamental basis of our government from one of a Republic, and capitalism, to a  ‘democratic’ socialist economy run by ‘majority rule’, or ‘elite’ rule, or ‘government rule’.

When challenged in court, will health insurance reform, which may be at its core unconstitutional, or the cap and tax legislation, or attempts to nationalize industries, be ruled as ‘political questions’ and not subject to review by the Courts?  Is the Constitution up for a vote? 😕

What is the line between Obama’s discretion as the so-called Executive, traditionally covered by ‘the political question’,  in foreign policy, and purposeful disarmament of America to enable our enemies to attack us (treason)?

Clear Signs

Like Paul Revere, we are looking for signs of which way they are coming, ‘one if by land, two if by sea’.  If you begin to see more and more Constitutional issues being thrown out by Courts using the ‘political question’, or even suspicious uses of ‘standing’, understand that the Courts are infected too. Yes, as if we didn’t already know that.

But also, these signs just require us to be vigilant in thinking everything all the way through.  Legal preparation, cases, and tactics must be impeccable.  And, our strategies must be coordinated, effective, and aimed at outmaneuvering them on the avenue by which they come.

Paul Revere on "Big Brown"

Paul Revere on "Big Brown"

15 Responses to “The ‘Political Question’”

  1. 1 Fernley Girl September 24, 2009 at 11:05 am

    I doubt this issue will be resolved correctly in the courts. If it is not resolved, where do we stand?

    O/T, but important. Obama is killing our soldiers in Afghanistan by denying air support.

  2. 2 jetdriver2 September 24, 2009 at 11:35 am

    Thank you Dr Kate. This sheds new light on where the “political question” doctrine originated and how it is being expanded way beyond its original meaning, just as has been done with the commerce clause.

    This information may well have an important place in arguments to be made in hearings coming up on the eligibility cases. I am forwarding to Dr. Taitz.

  3. 3 Fernley Girl September 24, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    When enemy action kills our troops, it’s unfortunate. When our own moral fecklessness murders those in uniform, it’s unforgivable.

  4. 4 Fernley Girl September 24, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    Have I been banned? Both comments I posted from my PC this morning were vaporized!

    • 5 drkate September 24, 2009 at 8:50 pm

      Yikes! Sorry the comment was in moderation! Just released. Fernley Girl, I would never delete your comments. wordpress is strange… 😳

  5. 6 Quantum Leap September 24, 2009 at 5:08 pm

    Look what happens when you surround yourself with toxic people.
    Our Real presient here>

    The cap and tax is the The Waxman-Markey Bill.
    Look who’s going along to get along. With this bill America will be no more. All under the guise of climate change they seek to tax us slaves to death and pay for their folly. It’s not Bush’s fault now. Stop the spending. Stop giving away our hard earned money to liars crooks and thieves. Stop sending billions to foreign nations and bankrupting the american way of life. Stop!

  6. 8 euandus October 22, 2009 at 10:24 am

    I suspect that the latest compromise regarding state banking regulation points to the influence of large corporations on the Congress as a culprit in the on-going eclipse of federalism. Pls see my blog if interested. Thanks.

  1. 1 Tyranny in America: The Judiciary « drkatesview Trackback on October 15, 2009 at 8:50 am
  2. 2 The Walls Exposed « drkatesview Trackback on December 4, 2009 at 12:09 am
  3. 3 The Usurper and the Courts « drkatesview Trackback on February 23, 2010 at 12:05 am
  4. 4 Obama’s Tacit Admission « drkatesview Trackback on March 9, 2010 at 12:09 am
  5. 5 The Straw Man’s Cloak « drkatesview Trackback on March 17, 2010 at 11:57 pm
  6. 6 Judges Impeach Themselves « drkatesview Trackback on July 5, 2010 at 12:32 am
  7. 7 Exposing the Sixteenth Amendment « drkatesview Trackback on September 8, 2011 at 10:36 am
Comments are currently closed.

September 2009
« Aug   Oct »

Get Your Copy at

All Pets Haven

Blog Archives

Just follow copyright law and nobody gets hurt!

The contents of this blog are protected under U.S. Copyright Law, United States Code, Title 17. Requests for use of active and archived articles in this blog must be presented in writing in the comment section, and proper attribution is expected. Thank you in advance.

drkatesview thanks you!

Since 8/15/09


Listen to drkate’s Revolution Radio

RSS Big Government

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS American Thinker

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS American Spectator

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Button 1 120 by 90

%d bloggers like this: