Comments on Powell v. McCormick

Authors

Charles E. Rice, Notre Dame Law SchoolFollow

Document Type

Response or Comment

Publication Date

1969

Publication Information

17 UCLA L. Rev. 94 (1969-1970)

Abstract

Powell v. McCormack is an unfortunate decision, principally because the Supreme Court should never have exercised its jurisdiction over the case. The ruling, however, is chiefly open to criticism, not because it is demonstrably contrary to established rules of law, but because it runs counter to those less clearly articulated, and essentially precatory, admonitions of judicial restraint which are implicit in the separation of governmental powers. The crucial point is not the jurisdiction of the subject matter, the Speech or Debate Clause, the issue of mootness raised by Justice Stewart in dissent or the substantive merits of Adam Clayton Powell's exclusion. Rather, the crucial point is justiciability—the problem of whether, out of a due regard for the separation of powers, the Court should refrain from exercising the jurisdiction which it otherwise might exercise.

Comments

Symposium: 89 Sup.Ct. 1944

Recommended Citation

Charles E. Rice, Comments on Powell v. McCormick, 17 UCLA L. Rev. 94 (1969-1970).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/458