Goldwater v. Carter

Definition

Goldwater v. Carter is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1979 that addressed the scope of presidential power in relation to foreign affairs, particularly regarding treaty termination. This case highlighted the limitations of judicial power when it comes to political questions, as the Court ultimately decided not to rule on the merits of the case, emphasizing the delicate balance between the executive branch's authority and the judiciary's role in checking that power.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The case arose when President Jimmy Carter attempted to unilaterally terminate a treaty with Taiwan, leading Senator Barry Goldwater and others to challenge this action.
2. The Supreme Court decided not to hear the case on its merits, effectively dismissing it based on lack of standing and concerns over justiciability.
3. This decision reinforced the idea that some issues regarding foreign policy and treaties may fall outside the jurisdiction of the courts due to their political nature.
4. The case underscored the tension between Congress and the presidency in managing foreign relations, highlighting how this balance is often contested.
5. Goldwater v. Carter remains a key example of how the judiciary can limit its own power in politically charged cases involving executive authority.

Review Questions

• How did Goldwater v. Carter illustrate the Political Question Doctrine in relation to presidential powers?
  • Goldwater v. Carter is a prime example of the Political Question Doctrine because the Supreme Court chose not to engage with the substantive issues of presidential power over treaties. Instead, it recognized that such questions involve significant political considerations that are best addressed by Congress and the executive branch. By dismissing the case, the Court affirmed its stance that some matters are too politically sensitive for judicial intervention.
• Discuss how Goldwater v. Carter reflects on the balance of powers between Congress and the President regarding treaty actions.
  • Goldwater v. Carter highlights the ongoing struggle between Congress and the President in determining control over foreign affairs, particularly treaty terminations. The case arose when President Carter attempted to unilaterally end a treaty without congressional approval, raising concerns about executive overreach. The dismissal by the Supreme Court left unresolved questions about whether such actions require congressional consent, emphasizing that this balance remains contentious and complex.
• Evaluate the implications of Goldwater v. Carter for future cases concerning executive authority in foreign policy.
  • The implications of Goldwater v. Carter for future cases regarding executive authority in foreign policy are significant. The Court's decision not to intervene suggests a precedent where issues involving foreign relations may remain outside judicial scrutiny, allowing presidents considerable leeway in managing treaties and international agreements. This can lead to a potential expansion of executive power at the expense of legislative oversight, raising important questions about accountability and governance in matters affecting national interests.

Related terms

Political Question Doctrine:

A legal principle that holds certain issues are better resolved by the legislative or executive branches rather than the courts, often because they involve inherently political matters.

Executive Power: The authority granted to the president to manage the operations of government and enforce laws, which includes conducting foreign relations and treaties.

Separation of Powers:

The constitutional division of powers among the three branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power.