Goldwater v. Carter
E903975
Goldwater v. Carter is a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court declined to decide a dispute over President Jimmy Carter’s unilateral termination of a defense treaty, treating it as a nonjusticiable political question.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Barry Goldwater et al. v. James Earl Carter, Jr., President of the United States, et al. | 1 |
| Goldwater v. Carter canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T11085059 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Goldwater v. Carter Context triple: [political question doctrine, leadingCase, Goldwater v. Carter]
-
A.
Wesberry v. Sanders
Wesberry v. Sanders is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle that congressional districts must be drawn so that each person's vote is as equal in weight as practicable, laying groundwork for the "one person, one vote" standard.
-
B.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
C.
Nixon v. Condon
Nixon v. Condon is a 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas’s delegation of authority to the Democratic Party to exclude Black voters from primary elections as unconstitutional state action under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
D.
Powell v. McCormack
Powell v. McCormack is a landmark 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited Congress’s power to exclude a duly elected member, holding that it could not refuse to seat Adam Clayton Powell Jr. when he met all constitutional qualifications.
-
E.
Edwards v. South Carolina
Edwards v. South Carolina is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned the breach-of-the-peace convictions of civil rights demonstrators, affirming their First Amendment rights to peaceful protest and assembly.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Goldwater v. Carter Target entity description: Goldwater v. Carter is a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court declined to decide a dispute over President Jimmy Carter’s unilateral termination of a defense treaty, treating it as a nonjusticiable political question.
-
A.
Wesberry v. Sanders
Wesberry v. Sanders is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle that congressional districts must be drawn so that each person's vote is as equal in weight as practicable, laying groundwork for the "one person, one vote" standard.
-
B.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
C.
Nixon v. Condon
Nixon v. Condon is a 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas’s delegation of authority to the Democratic Party to exclude Black voters from primary elections as unconstitutional state action under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
D.
Powell v. McCormack
Powell v. McCormack is a landmark 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited Congress’s power to exclude a duly elected member, holding that it could not refuse to seat Adam Clayton Powell Jr. when he met all constitutional qualifications.
-
E.
Edwards v. South Carolina
Edwards v. South Carolina is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned the breach-of-the-peace convictions of civil rights demonstrators, affirming their First Amendment rights to peaceful protest and assembly.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (42)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
political question doctrine case ⓘ |
| actionChallenged | unilateral termination of a mutual defense treaty by the President ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
foreign relations law ⓘ |
| citationStatus | plurality decision ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInvolved |
Article I of the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Article II of the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| decisionCharacter | fragmented Court with multiple opinions ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1979 ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
Barry Goldwater et al. v. James Earl Carter, Jr., President of the United States, et al.
ⓘ
linked to:
Goldwater v. Carter
|
| geographicalContext | United States–Taiwan relations ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| historicalContext | normalization of relations between the United States and the People’s Republic of China ⓘ |
| holding |
the case presented a nonjusticiable political question
ⓘ
the dispute was not ripe for judicial review ⓘ |
| impact | left unresolved whether Senate consent is required for treaty termination ⓘ |
| keyDoctrine |
political question doctrine
ⓘ
ripeness ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
justiciability
ⓘ
political question doctrine ⓘ presidential power to terminate treaties ⓘ separation of powers ⓘ |
| notableFor |
application of political question doctrine to treaty termination
ⓘ
judicial restraint in foreign affairs disputes ⓘ |
| opinionType | per curiam disposition ⓘ |
| petitioner |
Barry Goldwater
ⓘ
members of the United States Senate ⓘ |
| plaintiffRole | members of Congress challenging executive action ⓘ |
| presidentInvolved | Jimmy Carter ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | appeal from a lower federal court decision ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
presidential foreign affairs powers
ⓘ
treaty termination procedures ⓘ |
| respondent |
Jimmy Carter
ⓘ
President of the United States ⓘ |
| result |
case dismissed without reaching the merits
ⓘ
lower court judgment vacated ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | termination of the U.S.–Republic of China defense treaty ⓘ |
| treatyInvolved |
Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of China
ⓘ
linked to:
Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty
|
| treatyPartner |
Republic of China (Taiwan)
ⓘ
linked to:
Taiwan, Province of China
|
| yearArgued | 1979 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Goldwater v. Carter Description of subject: Goldwater v. Carter is a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court declined to decide a dispute over President Jimmy Carter’s unilateral termination of a defense treaty, treating it as a nonjusticiable political question.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Goldwater v. Carter
→
fullCaseName
→
Barry Goldwater et al. v. James Earl Carter, Jr., President of the United States, et al.
ⓘ
linked to: Goldwater v. Carter