PLEASE HELP CLARIFY THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE

[casper86]

Some of you may think that this is a silly statement to make... But, the poltical doctrine question was the most abstract topic this semester for me in CON LAW I! Can anyone please give me examples as to the following steps to analyze the issue because otherwise, it all seems way to abstract to me... Thank you.

   Textual Strand: Does the text or structure of the Constitution commit the matter to the un-reviewable discretion of another political branch?
   Justiciable Discoverable & Manageable Standard in the Constitution: lack of justiciable standards for resolving the issue – i.e. standards for which the court, as a court, can decide the question.
   Prudential Strand:
Does this produce enforcement issues? Too controversial? Government speaking with more than one voice on a sensitive issue? Are there other political safeguards sufficient to deal with the issue?
 

[Esco]

Textual Commitment - Article I - Legislative Power, Article II - Executive Power, Article III - Judicial Power.  If the issue at hand falls specifically within Article I, II, or III, the Constitution commits the matter to that particular branch of Gov.

Justiciable Discoverable & Manageable Standard in the Constitution - this is self explanatory.  Has the court ruled on such an issue before, or has the court developed a test for resolving such an issue. 

Prudential Strand - Basically, does this issue, in some way, implicate the separation of powers.  If so, it’s a political question. 

[M_Cool]

Textual - pretty easy.  is there a textual commitment to one of the other branches?  (ie an impeachment proceeding being held by the senate, etc)

Cognizable standards - is it a topic that is ridiculously hard to give a rule for?  (ie political gerrymandering)

There's on real hard fast rules about anything in Con Law I so just do a lot of rule proofing before you go into analysis is probably the best bet most of the time.