This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the section "Significance", the article states, "This case emphasizes the proper role of the judiciary to refrain from deciding political questions that are for the President and Congress to decide.". As far as I know, there is no universal agreement that the Supreme Court acted properly by declaring this to be a political question un-judiciable by the court. The fact of the matter is that this was a question that a significant number of Americans at the time felt the Supreme Court should have had the authority to rule on. What the proper role of the judiciary is or isn't is much a matter of debate, and of course varies from country to country. If the argument is that framers intended these matters to be decided by the president and congress, then it should be stated as such, rather then stated as if it is not a controversial question. Even if the framers intended the courts ability to address military actions of the executive branch to be as it currently is, that does not mean that people can disagree with the status quo. The way it is currently worded sounds like a law school textbook rather then a NPOV encyclopedia. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
