04638nam 2200757 a 450 991080936370332120211001033208.01-283-53989-697866138523421-4008-2073-11-4008-1164-310.1515/9781400820733(CKB)111056486507898(EBL)919503(OCoLC)794663579(SSID)ssj0000223689(PQKBManifestationID)11221277(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000223689(PQKBWorkID)10205769(PQKB)11434522(OCoLC)51328409(MdBmJHUP)muse36241(DE-B1597)447246(OCoLC)979685144(DE-B1597)9781400820733(Au-PeEL)EBL919503(CaPaEBR)ebr10035808(CaONFJC)MIL385234(MiAaPQ)EBC919503(EXLCZ)9911105648650789819920116d1992 uy 0engurnn#---|u||utxtccrPolitical questions/judicial answers[electronic resource] does the rule of law apply to foreign affairs? /Thomas M. FranckCourse BookPrinceton, N.J. Princeton University Pressc19921 online resource (209 p.)Description based upon print version of record.0-691-09241-9 Includes bibliographical references and index.Front matter --Contents --Acknowledgments --CHAPTER ONE. Introduction --CHAPTER TWO. How Abdication Crept into the Judicial Repertory --CHAPTER THREE. Two Principled Theories of Constitutionalism --CHAPTER FOUR. Prudential Reasons for Judicial Abdication --CHAPTER FIVE. When Judges Refuse to Abdicate --CHAPTER SIX. Mandated Adjudication: Act of State and Sovereign Immunity --CHAPTER SEVEN. Abolishing Judicial Abdication: The German Model --CHAPTER EIGHT. A Rule of Evidence in Place of the Political-Question Doctrine --CHAPTER NINE. The Special Cases: In Camera Proceedings and Declaratory Judgments --CHAPTER TEN. Conclusions: Does the Rule of Law Stop at the Water's Edge? --Notes --IndexAlmost since the beginning of the republic, America's rigorous separation of powers among Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches has been umpired by the federal judiciary. It may seem surprising, then, that many otherwise ordinary cases are not decided in court even when they include allegations that the President, or Congress, has violated a law or the Constitution itself. Most of these orphan cases are shunned by the judiciary simply because they have foreign policy aspects. In refusing to address the issues involved, judges indicate that judicial review, like politics, should stop at the water's edge--and foreign policy managers find it convenient to agree! Thomas Franck, however, maintains that when courts invoke the "political question" doctrine to justify such reticence, they evade a constitutional duty. In his view, whether the government has acted constitutionally in sending men and women to die in foreign battles is just as appropriate an issue for a court to decide as whether property has been taken without due process. In this revisionist work, Franck proposes ways to subject the conduct of foreign policy to the rule of law without compromising either judicial integrity or the national interest. By examining the historical origins of the separation of powers in the American constitutional tradition, with comparative reference to the practices of judiciaries in other federal systems, he broadens and enriches discussions of an important national issue that has particular significance for critical debate about the "imperial presidency."Political questions and judicial powerUnited StatesJudicial reviewUnited StatesCourtsUnited StatesSeparation of powersUnited StatesNational securityLaw and legislationUnited StatesUnited StatesForeign relationsPolitical questions and judicial powerJudicial reviewCourtsSeparation of powersNational securityLaw and legislation342.73/044347.30244Franck Thomas M148302MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910809363703321Political questions4039467UNINA