The Time for Judgment Has Arrived: The Zivotofsky v. Clinton Effect on the Political Question Doctrine's Application to the War Powers Resolution

The War Powers Resolution was enacted to serve as a congressional restraint on the President's power to engage in Military Action. Since then, Congress and the President have disagreed over the enforcement and constitutionality of the statute. Nonetheless, courts have dismissed cases regarding the War Powers Resolution claiming it is of a solely political nature i.e. a political question. The Judiciary traditionally apply the political question doctrine to issues regarding foreign affairs and, in effect, avoided hearing cases regarding the specifics of the war powers pertaining to Executive and Congress. This lack of judicial determination has resulted in the and unclear assignment of constitutional war powers authority to the branches. In Zivotofsky v. Clinton, the Supreme Court held that the political question doctrine cannot be applied to cases regarding statutory and constitutional interpretation. This narrowing of the political question doctrine potentially lowers the standard of justiciability. This Comment advocates, under the new Zivotofsky standard, for the Supreme Court to review statutory and constitutional disputes arising from the War Power's resolution.