Freedom and the Judicial System

The (federal) judicial system is highly influential in that it is able to interpret the Constitution and apply federal laws that govern all Americans. Cases begin at the district court level and may go through the court of appeals and ultimately end up at the United States Supreme Court—a panel of nine judges that have the final say in deciding the cases. The Supreme Court decides which cases are worth hearing, and ends up fully reviewing far fewer than are petitioned to it. For example, in 2007-08m it received over 9,600 petitions but only fully reviewed 75 of these (Katznelson, 259).

The Supreme Court is also able to review that decisions of state courts to ensure they comply with federal law. And while this may sound like the judicial system restricts freedom more than it supports it, but this is not the case.

By being able to interpret the Constitution, the judicial system actually gives us freedoms. Consider our freedom of speech, press, and religion. More recently, the judicial system gave women the right to have an abortion. The 1973 case, Roe v. Wade, heard by the Supreme Court, granted women the right to have abortions, and was important in recognizing the constitutional right to privacy. It followed the 1965 case, Griswold v. Connecticut, which overturned a state law banning the use of contraceptives (Katznelson, 272).

Finally, the judicial system supports freedom in a very important way: it gives the weak the ability to challenge those who have power. The Politics of Power states, “Even the powerful cannot do as they please but must submit to the rule of the law.” Though “submitting to the rule of law” may seem to limit freedom, it actually supports it by ensuring that EVERYONE may be free, not just those with the money and resources to do so (Katznelson, 283).

I often wonder, does our judicial system have enough power compared to the other branches of our government--the executive and legislative? 


Sources: 
"An avalanche of cash in judicial campaigns, Pt. 2 « Sustained Outrage." Gazette blogs. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2011. <http://blogs.wvgazette.com/watchdog/2010/10/29/an-avalanche-of-cash-in-judicial-campaigns-pt-2/>.


Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper.  The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.

Congress: Authentic Representation?

Congress supports authentic representation of the people in that representatives and senators are elected to their positions democratically. The Senate ensures that each state is represented in congress, and the House of Representatives ensures that smaller areas within each state (which may have different interests than the entire state) are represented. Thus, Congress is made up of 100 Senators and 435 Representatives (Katznelson, 220).

Congress limits the authentic representation of the people in that, like every other legislature in the world, it does not have an exact demographic profile of the citizens its members represent. "A disproportionately unrepresentative legislature is likely to leave many members of the population without representatives who even minimally comprehend their life situations and needs, while other who are overrepresented are likely to have their views taken into account as a matter of course" (Katznelson, 227). 

Congress contains a much lower proportion of Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians and other minorities than it does white, male, educated, rich, professional and business people. Blacks make up 12% of the electorate vs. 7% of seats in the House and 1% in the Senate and Hispanics are 9% of the electorate vs. 6% of House seats and 3% of Senate seats (Katznelson, 229).


Are the white, male, educated, rich, professional and business people in Congress really representing the interests of working class Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, etc.?


Sources: 
"grassroots." Morocco Board News Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2011. <http://www.moroccoboard.com/grassroots>.


Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.

The US Presidency and Democracy

The US presidency limits the formation of an ideal democracy more than it supports it. Recently, presidential power has grown so much that the United States is moving away from democracy altogether. In the case of President George W. Bush, the United States may almost just as well have been operating under a dictatorship, so out of control was the amount of power exercised by President Bush. He even recognized that (multiple times!).





When all three branches of government (executive, judicial and legislative) check and balance each other as they are supposed to, the presidency supports the formation of an ideal democracy. However, recently the presidency has found loopholes to avoid the checks and balances that are supposed to be provided by congress and the supreme court

Though the people elect the president, what the president does after that is mostly out of our control, and this is not in keeping with the rules of democracy. President G.W. Bush and the Patriot Act are prime examples of this. President Bush issued many signing statements, which he effectively used to interpret the meaning of laws to fit his own agenda. He also invoked a doctrine, the unified executive, to assert sole and unlimited control over the executive branch (Katznelson, 184). The Patriot Act, passed by congress after 9/11, gave the executive branch "wide latitude relatively unconstrained by congressional or judicial oversight" (Katznelson, 185). It deliberately did away with the checks and balances of the three branches of government that our fore fathers envisioned and therefore severely limits the formation of an ideal democracy.

The presidency was intended to provide checks and balance for the very democratic system of congress, but in fact, more often than not, congress ends up doing this for the presidency (when the existence of things like the Patriot Act don't get in the way).


The Presidency is not supporting the formation of an ideal democracy in the United States. Has the control the President exercises over our country gotten so out of control that the executive branch is harming our country more than it is helping it? 


At least President Obama recognizes his power and is attempting to use it to fix some of the mistakes of our former "Dictator-In-Chief," Mr. Bush. "Those seeking the presidency are far more motivated by ideological commitment and the desire to wield power than by a lust for wealth" (Katznelson, 181). America should examine which of these weighs more heavily on presidential candidates: ideological commitment or the desire to wield power. 


Sources: 
jaxhud. "YouTube- Bush Dictator ." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. . N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3xfT0c99g&feature=related>.


Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.