Difference between revisions of "Baker v. Carr"
Lawstudent (talk | contribs) |
Lawstudent (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | '''''Baker v. Carr''''', 269 U.S. 186 (1962) is notable mostly for Justice [[William Brennan]]'s discussion of the [[political question doctrine]]. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the apportionment of state legislative districts is not a political question and can be reviewed by the courts if constitutional violations are alleged. Together with [[Reynolds v. Sims]], 377 U.S. 533 (1964), this decision created the "one man, one vote" requirement for state legislative apportionment. | |
Justice [[William Brennan]] wrote this decision for the [[Warren Court]], declaring that it was the "responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the [[Constitution]]." | Justice [[William Brennan]] wrote this decision for the [[Warren Court]], declaring that it was the "responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the [[Constitution]]." | ||
Revision as of 03:25, June 18, 2011
Baker v. Carr, 269 U.S. 186 (1962) is notable mostly for Justice William Brennan's discussion of the political question doctrine. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the apportionment of state legislative districts is not a political question and can be reviewed by the courts if constitutional violations are alleged. Together with Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), this decision created the "one man, one vote" requirement for state legislative apportionment. Justice William Brennan wrote this decision for the Warren Court, declaring that it was the "responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution."
Justice Felix Frankfurter, joined by Justice John Harlan II, complained in dissent that this was "a massive repudiation of the experience of our past in asserting destructively novel judicial power."
See Also
External Links
- Case at FindLaw