Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
25. Should the court grant the motion?
A US company has sued the appropriate federal agency, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the second statute. The government has moved to dismiss the action on the ground that it involves a nonjusticiable political question.
A federal statute bans trade with any foreign country if the United States does not recognize the government of that country. For many years, the United States refused to recognize a particular country's government because it deemed the government repressive. The President recently extended diplomatic recognition to the country, but Congress passed a second statute withdrawing that recognition.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is incorrect. The political question doctrine insulates from judicial review certain constitutional questions the Constitution has committed either to the legislative or executive branch. The identities of the parties are irrelevant in determining if an action involves a nonjusticiable political question.
C is incorrect. The political question doctrine does not bar the Court from deciding cases involving sensitive issues of foreign affairs when the case concerns the constitutionality of a statute. See Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012).
D is incorrect. There is a judicially manageable standard in this case because the issue is the constitutionality of the second statute passed by Congress, a purely legal question.