Political Science: First Initial

Question 2

The interest groups try to affect the judicial system in three ways: lobbying on judicial confirmations, filing amicus curiae briefs, and sponsoring litigation[footnoteRef:1]. Lobbying on the judicial confirmations includes knowing who would become the court judge to influence the court case and their decisions could be made. Appointing a suitable judge on this position costs millions of dollars to those who want to have their judge of interest. Although the process is a routine one but demands time and money. Public campaigns are run for this purpose, and interest groups spend large money amounts for their judge of interest. [1: James A. Morone and Rogan Kersh. By the People: Debating American Government, Brief Edition, Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 303.]

The second way in which interest groups could influence the judicial system is filing amicus curiae, which refers to the invitation of the interest groups related to the pending case in the form of presentation of memos regarding the case they are interested in. they present their viewpoints and arguments on the case that result in attracting interest groups on some of the major cases in the year 2020[footnoteRef:2]. The case of the Consumer Protection Bureau in 2020 attracted more than fifty amicus curiae from hundreds of such groups. [2: Ibid., 303.]

While it could be costly to take an individual case to Court knowing that a great amount of money would have to be infused for paying the lawyers, researching for the issue and arguments, and following up on litigation[footnoteRef:3]. Instead, interest groups back an ongoing case in the Court, for example, if it concerns government funds going to any religious school or Civil Liberties Union. The process is initiated by choosing their interest cases, recruiting plaintiffs, and funding the relevant legal actions necessary for the case. [3: Ibid., 303.]

Question 3

The presidency has increased in power due to the image that English men have had regarding their kings. The redefining of the roles and responsibilities of the President was done when it was observed that people were freely coming in the White House to meet the President, and he had no privacy to meet in a single room with his cabinets[footnoteRef:4]. People even mobbed his rooms and halls, which was not deemed appropriate. [4: Ibid., 370.]

Powers had to be increased for the President so that easy access could be somewhat modified for the Presidents security. Some conditions were set for the President to be eligible, like being 35 years old and living within the United States for the past fourteen years[footnoteRef:5]. Along with this, the powers included being the head of the navy, military, and army combats, possessing the sole power to declare war when in need, stating the budget for this purpose, and making rules governing the concerned parties, granting or opposing the offense made against the country, formulating treaties with the parties who are interested in the same goals, the appointment of ambassadors, and asking the authorities to act upon the Constitutional aims so that reporting to the President is reckoned mandatory[footnoteRef:6]. [5: Ibid., 370.] [6: Ibid., 371.]

Presidents powers could be debated for being either strong or weak. When a weak individual becomes President, no court, Congress, or people can limit his powersunder the Constitution. However, this is the unitary executive theory, which has pros and cons. Imperial presidency rather makes a string individual becoming a President more like an emperor. Yet, there has enough to be discovered in this regard as only two Presidents have been able to fulfill their Presidency terms. The reason for not being able to do so is the inability to deal with domestic issues, raising a question of their full power.

Question 4

The concept of gerrymandering denotes seizing the opportunity of redistricting due to the change in the population of each state and county within the country[footnoteRef:7]. The resulting impact is seen on the seats of the Houses. The reapportions redefine the boundaries of the election districts and their respective seats, which is in reality called redistricting. [7: Ibid., 282.]

Two main methods of gerrymandering a district are packing and cracking[footnoteRef:8]. Packing is about placing the same type of voters in one district. In contrast, the other method involves making them disperse in several districts of minorities to gain representation from those areas. [8: Ibid., 283.]

The two example cases that the Supreme Court has decided on this subject are Evenwel vs. Abbott, 136 S. Ct 1120 (2016) and Rucho vs. Common Cause, 139 S. CT. 2484 (2019)[footnoteRef:9]. The first case talks about permitting the total population for calculating compliance with one person and one vote. The case taught the calculation of the total population of Reynolds and Wesberry, the population equality for districting planning was under debate. Plaintiffs from Evenwel side challenged redistricting scheme of Texas 2011 with the argument that its use of the total population discriminates the voters and is not in line with the Equal Protection Clause. The disproportionate weightage was given to the rest of the population, whereas immigrants were neglected. The decision from the Supreme Court came as a confirmation that states can use the total population for attempting to comply with one person and one vote feature. This did not mean that other methods were disallowed, though. [9: National Conference of tate Legislatures, Redistricting and the Supreme Court: The Most Significant Cases, 14 September 2021, https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/redistricting-and-the-supreme-court-the-most-significant-cases.aspx.]

The other case example is Rucho vs. Common Cause, where the federal courts excessive capacity for redistricting and their resolution was discussed along with regulating partisanship in all state courts, Congress, and state legislatures[footnoteRef:10]. The problem started when issues arose in defining who much partisanship is too much, as in Davis vs. Bandemer. The issue was too hard for the federal courts to solve, leading to non-justiciable claims in the courts. It was ascertained that state courts and legislature should be facilitated to answer such questions shrewdly. The ability of partisanship for redistricting that avoids traditional legislative process was regulated by the Supreme Court and its decision. [10: Ibid.]

Question 5

The goals of American foreign policy are national security, fortune, and spreading American values globally[footnoteRef:11]. In Bidens administration, the interim National Security Strategy (NSS) is considered important for leadership roles within the American institution and creating a security image worldwide[footnoteRef:12]. However, it rejects one of the major challenges of foreign policy, which is alliance management. Although military strengthening has been part of every policy, and so does Bidens NSS, the great power relation and competition through NSS backing have been under discussion since Biden has come into power. Biden government knows the power of primacy and hefty investments that need to be injected within military empowerment; therefore, NSS highlights the support from allies and interested parties when threats from adversaries are high. This could be attributed to another feature of national security in foreign policy: realism. America sees the rest of the world as dangerous, and for that, it needs to have strong allies so that when the time comes, the...

…the light of the Constitution. It had never been discoursed before by the Courts that the fundamental right of LGBT couples wanted the marriages to be a topic of due process being in line with the Fourteenth Amendment. [22: Ballotpedia, Obergefell vs. Hodges. n.d., https://ballotpedia.org/Obergefell_v._Hodges.]

The Justices of the Supreme Court rule on this case, in order of seniority with last names mentioned, were as follows:

Roberts: Dissent

Scalia: Dissent

Kennedy: Majority

Thomas: Dissent

Ginsburg: Majority

Breyer: Majority

Alito: Dissent

Sotomayor: Majority

Kagan: Majority[footnoteRef:23] [23: Oyez, Obergefell vs. Hodges. n.d., https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556.]

The arguments that Justices used in the majority were Fourteenth Amendment should be considered lawful as having the fundamental right to marry with an individual autonomy is the due right of every citizen without any sexual discrimination[footnoteRef:24]. Legal recognition should be provided to the citizens to families and their children to maintain and sustain social order. The denial of the equal protection clause would be a renunciation for all human beings, whether they are gay couples or not. Conversely, the arguments that Justices of dissent presented stated that Constitution currently does not address the issue of same-sex marriages and therefore, equal protection for such couples does not apply. The Constitution does highlight the equal right to marry. However, the Court cannot overrun the Constitution and make their policies for LGBT couples. Supporting a state to modify its definition for marriages would be an intrusion in the Constitution that Courts should not be allowed to do. [24: Ibid.]

The majority opinion given by Justice Kennedy stated that the principal cause of the law should not be to demean a certain category of citizens, which DOMA seems to do with the clause that has been mentioned for same-sex couples, being in direct contrast with the right to freedom that is presented in the Constitution. Justice Ginsburg joined in with Kennedy citing that the personal autonomy individually takes the major choice of the person as marriage is the fundamental right between two persons[footnoteRef:25]. Only the word person has been mentioned and therefore does not distinguish the LGBT community differently in the Constitution. Justice Breyer stated that there is adequate justification for providing the right to the pertinent class to marry and be a citizen of the country. The Constitution mentions equal rights for all. Justice Sotomayor and Kagan supported the opinion of the majority given by Justice Kennedy as DOMAs clause for deeming the right to marriage of same-sex couples less valuable is wrong. [25: Ballotpedia, Obergefell vs. Hodges.]

Justice Roberts gave the dissenting opinion with an argument that same-sex marriage might be beneficial for LGBT couples but does not fall under the Constitution. Justices Scalia and Thomas joined by saying that extensive reading of the Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection clauses does not cater to the role of the courts concerned to being democratic in their decision. Additionally, they were of the view that the due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would snatch away the right of the Constitution itself and put it in the hands of the Court only, which is not right[footnoteRef:26]. Justice Alito said that before the case was brought to the Court, the states individually were in the process of deciding whether same-sex marriage should be allowed or not, and some of the states declared it legal as well. The Constitution seems to be leaving this question for the citizens to be answered on their own and even in the hands of distinct states. [26: Oyez, Obergefell vs. Hodges.…