Since the Supreme Court’s opinion in Baker v. Carr, the political question doctrine has been viewed as consisting of textual and prudential factors. How these interrelate, and which type of factors to favor if these clash, has led to considerable confusion. In the recent case of Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, Chief Justice Roberts may have attempted to settle these concerns by ignoring prudential factors altogether, characterizing political questions as concerned only with textual constraints. . . .