American Policy, Judicial Activism and Restraint - Assignment Example

American Policy Question 1 Judicial activism and restraint are both opposite approaches to constitutional and legal interpretation applied as the grounds for decision-making in a court case (Manje 98). As a criticism, Judicial activism might be rooted in the political bias of the individual applying the label and might or might not, in reality, have a foundation. One recent case of judicial activism is the US Supreme Court's ruling in Federal Election Commission v. Citizens United, 555 US ___ (2010). In finding for the complainant, Citizens United, the Supreme Court changed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Rule of 2002 to ease restrictions on campaign funding and endorse the First Amendment rights of corporations (Manje 98). In giving its ruling, the conservative group of the Roberts Court improved the cause of "corporate personhood" through giving large corporations the capacity to drown out the voices of the electorate by the production and circulating of quasi-media messages promoting or demeaning certain political candidates. In giving corporations this power, the Court opened the door to making them the most powerful purveyors of public opinion, devoid of requiring accountability or truthfulness (Manje 102). This is a power that should not be granted to corporations, thus I close this question is support of judicial restraint powers. Question 2 In Furman v. Georgia, the justices considered the death penalty as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because these death sentences were cruel and unusual in the same manner that being struck by lightning is unusual and very cruel (Griffins 304). They argued the fact that people charged with rape are simply convicted, but those charged with petty crime want to be executed. I feel that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime so long as it is imposed on the necessary crimes that deserve to be punished with the death penalty. For instance, rapists, people who are charge with more than three counts of any crime. This will work as a very good example into deterring crime rates (Griffins 305). What would make one form of capital punishment cruel and unusual is the virtual belief that genuinely innocent individuals will be executed and that there is no likely way of repaying them for this miscarriage of justice. What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, for instance, is the agony the innocent friends and family of criminals have to also undergo during the execution. However, the judges took into consideration the message they were sending to likely culprits in order to deter crime. (Griffins 304) Question 3 Haidt’s research give me greater insight into why people feel differently than I do about politics and government due to the simple fact that their always opposing views about politics that is why there is liberalism and conservatism. Based on the five moral impulses presented by Haidt, I cannot see which what they missed because the impulses are the ones that influence an individual to behave morally in a society. These are what everyone needs as a guide in order to uphold moral principles. Research can like Haidts can help bridge the political divide because challenging authority leads to better responsiveness. Therefore, these different political groups needs to challenge one another in order to bring positive change. Question 4 The two party system still works and can be considered very fair. In fact, people have an even much better voice compared to those who are tried and true Democrats and Republicans (Manje 41). This is because each party knows that they are not going to alter those individuals' votes who vote in party lines. Therefore, the only way to triumph is to cater to the libertarians, independents as well as others who are not affiliated and influence them into voting for their candidate (Manje 44). I deem that a multi-party scheme is more worse than a two-party system. This is because the number of national political parties makes no big difference at all to the value of representatives chosen. Just having more groups does not guarantee a quality group of people. In case of a third party, then they should give a third place view from political matters (Manje 44). This means that they can only criticize the dealing of the national political party, but not have the power to amend their rulings. Question 5 Campaign spending should not be protected as free speech because it gives the special groups and their lobbyists even more power and authority in Washington, whereas still undermining the influence of average citizens who make minute contributions to maintain their preferred candidates (Carr 1). This corporations should not be treated as individuals because they have more power than individuals do. The reason Stephen Colbert devoted so much time to the Superpac was because he thought that it would lead to a better tomorrow for Americans. He argued that the show could raise more sums of money from unions, corporations plus other groups, as well as wealthy people (Carr 1). The "Citizens' United v. FEC" decision and the resulting SuperPacs only increases my ability to influence elections if I have funds since it appears people who have funds have more people in this ruling. My overall opinion is that campaigns now favor only those who can pay hugely for them to be heard leaving the less privileged American behind (Carr 1). Though this ruling will hardly influence elections in the short run, in the long run I believe elections will be decided by the amount of funds poured into the campaign because only these individuals will be heard. Works Cited Carr, David. Comic’s PAC Is More Than a Gag. N.p, 2011. Web. Griffins, Eric. U.S. Supreme Court. London: McMillan Publishers, 2013. Print. Manje, Phillips. The Philosophy of Law - Inside the Practice of Law and Inside the Court Chambers. Who Really Run the Courts. What Court Clerks are Doing! New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print. Read More