The President and the Debt Ceiling: A Conversation with Chat GPT

 What constitutional issues has the Supreme Court deemed political and not subject to judicial review?

The Supreme Court has often deemed certain political questions as non-justiciable, meaning that they are not subject to judicial review. This means that the Court will not hear or make decisions on these types of issues, as they are seen as best left to the political branches of government, such as the legislature and executive.

Examples of political questions that the Supreme Court has deemed non-justiciable include:

Questions related to the manner in which the president performs his duties, such as the exercise of executive privilege or the removal of executive officers.

Questions related to the political process, such as the apportionment of congressional districts or the administration of elections.

Questions related to foreign policy, such as the recognition of foreign governments or the determination of war powers.

Questions related to the impeachment of federal officials, as the Constitution grants exclusive authority to the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings and the Senate to conduct the trial.

These non-justiciable political questions are often seen as beyond the reach of the judiciary, as the Constitution grants the political branches of government broad discretion and expertise in these areas. The Court has recognized that the judicial branch should not interfere in these areas of government responsibility and that the political branches are better equipped to address these complex and sensitive issues.

therealagentpenis@gmail.com

Could a decision by the president to borrow above the debt limit be considered a non-justiciable political question?

A decision by the President to borrow above the debt limit could potentially be considered a non-justiciable political question, meaning that it is not subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court has recognized that certain questions related to the exercise of executive power, including questions about the management of the country's finances, are political in nature and best left to the political branches of government.

In this case, the President could argue that his decision to borrow above the debt limit is a necessary and discretionary executive power that is protected from judicial interference. The argument could be made that the debt limit is a political constraint on the President's power to manage the country's finances, and that the President must have the flexibility to borrow when necessary to meet the country's financial obligations.

However, this is a complex and highly controversial issue that has not been definitively resolved by the courts. It is possible that a court could decide to review a challenge to the President's decision to borrow above the debt limit, and the outcome of such a case would depend on the specific circumstances and arguments presented by the parties. Ultimately, the question of whether a decision by the President to borrow above the debt limit is a non-justiciable political question remains unsettled and may only be resolved by a court in the future.