- [Narrator] In the late 1970s,
a dispute between The White House and Congress
on the limits of presidential authority
created more than just the usual
awkward tension in Washington, D.C.
It also led to a badly fragmented
United States Supreme Court decision
in Goldwater versus Carter.
Without the Senate's approval,
President Jimmy Carter unilaterally rescinded
a defense treaty with Taiwan.
Carter was hoping to form a new treaty
with the People's Republic of China.
In so doing, however, he incurred the wrath
of Senator Barry Goldwater and several other senators,
who filed a lawsuit against the president.
The Constitution is silent
on how a treaty can be terminated,
but the senators argued that because a two-thirds majority
in the Senate is required to ratify a treaty,
the same Senate approval is also required
to nullify a treaty.
The District Court agreed and held
that Congressional approval is required
for the termination of a treaty.
The Court of Appeals reversed,
holding that unilaterally terminating the treaty
was within the president's authority.
The Supreme Court granted cert to determine
whether the president can unilaterally terminate a treaty.
Without oral argument,
the Court issued a two-sentence per curiam opinion,
holding that the question presented wasn't justiciable.
The Court remanded the case to the District Court
with instructions to dismiss.
Given the opinion's brevity,
several justices wrote separate concurrences and dissents
to express their individual views.
In one concurrence, Justice Rehnquist argued
that the case should be dismissed
because it presented a political question.
Rehnquist focused his argument
on the first two factors of the six-factor test
previously announced in Baker versus Carr.
First, is there a textually demonstrable
constitutional commitment of the issue
to a political branch?
Second, is there a lack of judicially discoverable
and manageable standards for resolving the issue?
Regarding the first factor,
Rehnquist noted that the Constitution
expressly grants the Senate a role
in the ratification of a treaty,
but it's noticeably silent
on how a treaty can be terminated.
This means, Rehnquist argued,
that the issue is left up to
the legislative and executive branches,
sometimes referred to as the political branches.
For the second factor,
Rehnquist argued that the absence
of a constitutional provision on treaty termination
indicates that this case must be resolved
by the political process, not the judicial process.
Lacking a clear constitutional standard
for judicial resolution,
Rehnquist argued that the issue
was a nonjusticiable political question.
In another concurrence,
Justice Powell supported dismissing the case
on the ground that it wasn't ripe for judicial review.
Powell argued that a dispute between Congress
and the president isn't ready for judicial review
until after each branch takes official action
to assert its constitutional authority.
While several senators filed a lawsuit
against President Carter,
there was still no official congressional action,
such as a vote declaring the Senate's authority.
Until Congress challenged the president
with the appropriate formal action,
Powell argued that the case wasn't ready
for the Court to consider.
However, Powell disagreed with Rehnquist
about whether the case presented a political question.
For the first Baker factor,
Powell reasoned that because no constitutional provision
gives the president sole authority to terminate treaties,
there's no textually demonstrable commitment
of the issue to a political branch.
This constitutional silence, Powell argued,
called for a judicial answer.
For the second Baker factor,
Powell reasoned that the issue could be resolved
by applying ordinary principles
of constitutional interpretation.
Justice Brennan dissented.
Like Powell, he argued that there was no political question.
This issue, Brennan argued,
was a matter of ordinary constitutional law.
The Court merely needed to decide which branch
had the power to nullify treaties.
As a result, the matter fell squarely
within the judiciary's domain.
Therefore, Brennan went on to reach the merits
of the constitutional issue.
He observed that the president has
the exclusive authority to recognize,
and withdraw recognition from, foreign countries.
In this case, the president's cancellation
of the defense treaty with Taiwan
was incident to his recognition
of the People's Republic of China.
It thus fell within his authority to conduct foreign policy.
Goldwater versus Carter is one of the most
fractured opinions in Supreme Court history.
Although the justices' opinions
illustrated different approaches
to the justiciability doctrine,
the case left a major question
of constitutional law unanswered,
namely whether the president can terminate a treaty
without congressional approval.
(marker scratching)