Order 5651147 (1)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Nairobi *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
116
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by Emmaculatesila
1
Essay Questions
Student’s Name
Instructor
Institution
Course
Date
Essay Questions
Q1
The video illustrates the process a bill must follow to become law. There are two other
differences not highlighted in the video: the steps that happen once the President vetoes the bill.
Regularly, a veto happens when the President returns the bill to the house where the bill
originated from (Schoolhouse Rock, 2017). The President usually explains why the bill should
not pass. Congress might override this veto, making the bill law.
When Congress adjourns without the President signing the law within ten days, a pocket
veto occurs. In this scenario, the head of state may not return the bill to Congress, or Congress
cannot be in a position to overlook the veto. These changes are important because of the systems
of checks and balances. These systems of balances and checks being included in the
Constitution are very crucial. Each of the government branches has the capability to restrict the
authority of the others through the use of balances and checks. In this scenario, all the
government branches check the powers of the other branches to make sure that the power
distribution is equitable among the branches. The methods through which laws are drafted
according to the video is a good illustration of balances and checks in operation (Schoolhouse
Rock, 2017). Legislators can introduce and vote on a proposal. The President then assesses if the
2
bill is good for America. Suppose this is the scenario; they ascent the measure, which becomes
law.
Once the President does not feel that the legislation piece is useful to the country, he will
not sign it, which is described above. As illustrated, the legislative branch is then offered the
second opportunity to overlook, which perfectly illustrates balances and checks in place. The
balances and checks work once the legislative branch receives good votes. This means it can
overcome the veto passed by the executive branch, and then the measure is officially assigned to
law. After the bill passes, residents can test in the judicial branch-controlled court system. If the
law is unfair, an individual can sue the government. Lawyers can then object to or against the
case, and the judge chooses the strongest point. The losing party might appeal to higher courts,
possibly reaching the United States Supreme Court. On the other hand, if the legislative branch
does not agree with how the judiciary interprets the law, they can draft new legislation pieces,
and the process starts afresh. Hence, as illustrated above, every branch participates in the
making law process (Manuel & Cammisa, 115). This prevents any one branch from becoming
very dominant. This is the defining factor of a functional and stable democracy. The three
branches of the United States operate under checks and balances to ensure that no branch is
more powerful than the other and also to ensure that each arm of the government operates under
its stipulated powers without crossing each others’ line. The balances and checks ensure that
these roles are played well by each arm of the government.
Q2
One policy that I find to be a constant problem in the world is the constant dangerous
situations we face involving guns in America. This is something that our Founding Fathers did not
consider because they did not know we would have guns like fully automatic rifles. It is a
dangerous item to have around, resulting in the loss of many American lives. One law I would
3
restrict even more is the Gun Control Law (Siegel et al., p2028). I would restrict the possession of
guns to prohibit the possession of dangerous guns, only allowing the possession of guns for
protection. Gun crimes in America have been on the rise and hence restricting it would be a policy
that could help the country to mitigate these crimes and also make lives safer. I would eliminate
possessing overly dangerous guns, such as Automatic Rifles and hunting rifles, to average
American citizens because there is no need for something that powerful. There should be more
restrictions on owning a gun to protect other lives and prevent dangerous situations such as school
shootings. I believe this idea would go far in the public policy process because it is something that
has—beginning with the Agenda Setting, or the first step where this problem is brought to the
government's attention.
Edweek states, “As of the end of 2021, 92 school shootings since 2018” (
Marshall & Clark
). This
is a lot of school shootings that were all severely dangerous and resulted in the loss of students'
lives. No one, including teenagers, must stay with any thought like losing lives at school. This
should grab the attention of the administration. Then, the next phase is determining the best plan of
action, which is precise. Since this is a broader problem we need to fix, there will likely be fewer
solutions. With more solutions to this problem, such as more licensing, enforcement, and
consequences, it will have better results. The next step is “Policy Implementation,” or the
implementation of the policy that is chosen. The policy implementation is described as sequence of
activities taken by the sitting government and others to attain the objectives and goals enunciated
in the policy statements. This would go well because of the comprehensive solutions for the
problem. There are more choices so that you can get better results. I believe the increased licensing
and courses you must take would be the best choice for the problem at hand. Finally, is the Policy
Evaluation component of the process. This is simply taking a step back and addressing how
effectively the law being in place worked. I believe this would be successful because the addition
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
of licensing would still allow people to own guns but make possession safer. The required classes
would teach about gun safety and its importance, decreasing the number of school shootings. I
believe this would go far with President Joe Biden. I believe there would be close votes on each
side of the political stance but with a slighter higher percentage towards restricting the Gun Control
Laws. The present administration could do this.
Q3
No, I could not sign the bill. President Trump resolved to select a replacement sooner
during his term, which rendered the Supreme Court at the forefront of a public debate. In the last
presidential elections, the Republicans had placed greater stress on the federal judge's selection,
specifically supreme court judges, than the Democrats had. Some Democrats had shown interest
in increasing the supreme court size if the Democrats and Senate confirmed any Trump nominee
had won the presidency and both legislative houses control. In the early campaign stages,
numerous Democratic contestants proposed reducing the supreme court size and extending the
terms of the justices. They, along with around half of the nearly 2,000 federal judges, enjoy
tenure during periods of "good behavior"- essentially for the duration of their desire to serve
(Wheeler). These durations are only questioned by rare congressional impeachment and removal
proceedings. Understanding this foundation is crucial to understanding why 13 judges are just a
political wave for "adding seats for payback" purposes rather than for the effectiveness of the
Supreme Court.
The judges that preside over the supreme court are not specified in the Constitution; historically,
has always been anywhere from 5 judges to ten based on the number of judicial districts a nation
has. Among the most crucial obligations of the supreme courts, justices until the late 19
th
century
had been traveling across their allocated circuits to try issues in the systems’ old circuit courts,
5
which acted as the principal trial court till 1891. This obligation lasted until the late nineteenth
century. Late in the 1860s, Congress decided that there would be nine circuits and, consequently,
nine justices assigned to each circuit (Blumm et al., 9). Some call a court with nine members the
Goldilocks court because it is just the right size and neither too big nor too little. This is even
though the court only has nine members because it is a coincidence. Franklin Roosevelt’s
objection request in 1937 was to increase the size of the court’s membership. Chief Justice
Charles Evans Hughes voiced his concern regarding the potential of a bigger discussion floor with
more justices. It was generally agreed that the judges on the bench were enough to ensure the
court’s work could be efficiently, effectively, and adequately managed.
The discussion illustrated that the deterioration of a nomination process at any level is a slide that
has been growing for a long and it is approaching a stage near the boiling point. The process of
selecting and confirming federal judges, which used to take only a few months but is now a fight
that lasts for a whole year, even for applicants who are not contentious, has gotten more complex.
Even if some ideological outliers were permitted to sit on the bench occasionally, the two major
political parties have undermined the protections that once obliged lawmakers and the
government to seek judicial nominees within a wide ideological mainstream. This has been the
case, although some outliers can sit in court from time to time. The filibuster had been
successfully terminated for most of the nominations by Democrats; however, the filibusters had
been successfully terminated by the Republicans for nominees in the supreme court to oppose
Obama administration selections while he was in office consistently; Republicans abolished the
veto power that senators had over appointees made in their home states. As a result, it is possible
to conclude that the stopped process is due to the widening partisan divide.
6
Works Cited
Blumm, Michael C., Kate Flanagan, and Annamarie White. "Right-Sizing the Supreme Court: A
History of Congressional Changes."
Case W. Res. L. Rev.
72 (2021): 9.
Paul Christopher Manuel
,
Anne Marie Cammisa
.. What if American democracy functioned
without
checks
and balances?
Checks and Balances?
,
(2019)
115-142.
http
s
:
//
d
o
i
.
o
r
g
/
10
.
4
32
4
/
9
78
0
42
9
03
9
55
3
-
4
Marshall, Joanne M., and Brandon L. Clark. "A Systematic Literature Review of Educational
Leadership and US School Shootings: Establishing a Research Agenda."
Educational
Administration Quarterly
(2023): 0013161X231166335.
Schoolhouse Rock (2017). I’m just a Bill. retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=OgVKvqTItto
Siegel, Michael, et al. "The impact of state firearm laws on homicide and suicide deaths in the
USA, 1991–2016: a panel study."
Journal of general internal medicine
34 (2019): 2021-
2028.
Wheeler, Russell. “
Should we restructure the Supreme Court?”
Brookings. (2020, October 27).
http
s
:
//
ww
w
.b
r
o
o
k
i
ng
s
.
e
d
u
/
p
o
l
i
cy2
0
2
0
/
vo
t
e
r
v
i
t
a
l
/
s
ho
ul
d-we-restructure-the-
supreme-court/
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help