Impact of Baker v. Carr (1962)
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The United States Supreme Court, which had long toiled largely in the background, finally assumed its constitutionally mandated position as one of the three equal branches of government during the tenure (1953-1969) of Chief Justice Earl Warren. The decisions of the Warren Court reshaped the role of the judiciary, and in many instances, transformed American society. For most Americans, this assertion of power is reflected by well-known cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). But several lesser-known cases, dealing with more arcane issues, have been equally important. One such case is Baker v. Carr (1962), which greatly expanded the CourtÆs jurisdiction and thus its reach. This paper will examine Baker v. Carr and its continuing impact on American law. The plaintiffs in Baker were Tennessee voters who alleged that the stateÆs system of apportioning its voting districts ôdebasedö their votes, and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Tennessee had not re-apportioned its seats in the General Assembly for 60 years, even though the stateÆs population had undergone dramatic changes, both in size and distribution. The population had shifted from predominantly rural to predominantly urban, yet rural districts maintained a disproportionate amount of power. Therefore, the votes of rural residents counted more than those of urban residents.
. . .
ince they did not invoke the Guaranty Clause, the case presented a justiciable issue. Thus, the judiciary properly exercised jurisdiction over this case.
Brennan then rewrote the Political Question Doctrine, articulating a new standard based on the proposition that the Court should only turn down ôpolitical questions,ö not ôpolitical cases. Brennan cited several factors in determining whether political questions made a case non-justiciable. Those factors included ôlack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving [the issue]; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial determination[.]ö The rest of his factors are equally vague.
So vague that some commentators have described the standards for BrennanÆs revised Political Question Doctrine as ôuselessö (Chemerinsky 126). Brennan likely intended that result, purposely muddying the waters to give the Court more flexibility. That way, if justice demanded, the Court could take any case without seeming to violate its precedents. If Brennan had articulated bright-line rules, and the Court had later ignored those standards, the CourtÆs legitimacy would suffer. Brennan achieved his primary aim of
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Question Doctrine, District Court, Governmentö Court, Kirkpatrick Preisler, Guaranty Clause, Protection Clause, Convention Court, Amendment Tennessee, Fourteenth Amendments, Warren CourtÆs, political question, political question doctrine, question doctrine, voting districts, federal courts, equal protection, district court, guaranty clause, reapportion voting districts, reapportion voting, political questions, court found, ôone person voteö, violated equal protection, equal protection clause,
Approximate Word count = 2129
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Impact of Baker v. Carr (1962)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
