On the recordJanuary 26, 1995
I would like to review the important factor of judicial review under the proposed amendment. As currently drafted, the Barton substitute is totally silent on the issue of judicial review, creating what could be a serious legal quagmire. One potential uncertainty concerns the applicability of the political question doctrine, which is designed to restrain the judiciary from inappropriate interference in the business of other branches of the Federal Government. We will not have to worry with that doctrine anymore because we are inviting the judiciary to come into the legislative business of Government, and we are not even giving any direction as we amend the Constitution of the United States to create this exception. Many scholars have indicated that the political question doctrine is unlikely to limit judicial intervention in the present case. An additional area of confusion relates to judicial limitations concerning standing. While a taxpayer may not be able to show sufficient injury to have standing to bring suit in Federal court that would allow him to challenge congressional failure to comply with the balanced budget amendment, standing may be far more compelling if sought by a Member of Congress or an entire House of Congress or an entitled recipient who has been denied benefits as a result of the questionable impoundment of funds. This is certain to be a thicket of confusion and tangled litigations and appeals.
Source
govinfo.gov




