Question 71 5 / 5 pts Compare and contrast judicial restraint and judicial activism

Question 71

5 / 5 pts

Compare and contrast judicial restraint and judicial activism. Discuss which approach to judicial review is most in line with the Constitution.

Your Answer:

Judicial restraint and judicial activism are both theories that demonstrate the role of the judicial system in the United States. Judicial activism favors contemporary values and gives judges the power to overrule various judgments or acts of Congress. On the other hand, judicial restraint is aligned with the Constitution as it limits judges’ powers and holds the opinion that courts should uphold all acts and laws of Congress unless they oppose the Constitution.

Question 72

5 / 5 pts

Which forms of mass media traditionally have been the most relied on? Which forms have grown in importance?

Your Answer:

Traditionally, forms of mass media involving newspapers, television, and radio have been the most relied on to transmit information. However, the traditional forms of mass media have grown less important due to the emergence of digital media. With time, digital media including the internet and mobile media have grown in importance as an alternative to traditional mass media due to their ability to transmit information to a large number of users almost instantly.

Question 73

5 / 5 pts

What is pluralism? What are two critiques of pluralism?

Your Answer:

Pluralism is the view that groups of people should govern the country as they influence the making and implementation of laws and policies to maximize their interests. Pluralism is ineffective as it does not represent the interests of the entire public as minority groups may not have representatives to lobby for the implementation of laws and policies that advance their interests. Second, it is challenging to implement pluralism due to the many interests groups available, each with opposing ideas, which may lead to bias when the needs of interest groups are prioritized as opposed to focusing on national interest.

Question 74

5 / 5 pts

Define political socialization. What is one source of political socialization and when does political socialization end?

Your Answer:

Political socialization refers to the process in which individuals develop identities, values, and behaviors  based on their perception of how power is arranged and how the world around them is organized. The family is one source of political socialization as it influences a person’s view of politics based on parenting styles, the family’s ideological views, and party affiliations by the family. Political socialization is a lifelong process and does not change, although people’s basic values may change over time.

Question 75

20 / 20 pts

Discuss the degree to which voter suppression is a problem in the United States. Evaluate the idea that voter suppression has always been an important feature of the American political system. If voter suppression continues to be a problem in the United States, what forms does it take currently?

Your Answer:

Voter suppression is problematic as it prevents American Citizens from electing individuals that would represent their interests. The negative impacts of voter suppression promote inequality. People from minority ethnic communities, older individuals, people living with disabilities, and other disadvantaged groups of people are disproportionately affected by voter suppression. For instance, in the last general election, up to 70% of voter registration applications that were still pending at the time of the elections belong to African Americans. However, African Americans only make up 32% of the US population. Therefore, it seems that the voting registration processes disproportionately affect African Americans. In this way, voter suppression may prevent various groups of people from being represented in political offices.

Voter suppression has always been an important feature of the American political system. Historically, groups of voters have been prevented from electing their representatives into political offices. Prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the United States had implemented laws that prevented people from minority backgrounds from voting. Voters were required to pay poll taxes, a factor that prevented people from disadvantage backgrounds from voting. African Americans and people from other minority backgrounds could not afford to pay the poll taxes as they were mainly casual laborers. Also, voters were required to take literacy tests to enable them to vote. However, the requirement barred minority citizens from voting as they did not have access to educational opportunities that would have given them the ability to read and write. With time, the law has undergone numerous changes to allow people from minority backgrounds the opportunity to vote. However, voter suppression is still persistent and prevents disadvantaged groups of people from voting.

Voter suppression continues to be a problem in the United States. It takes various forms that impact various stages of the electoral process. One of the forms of voter suppression is the implementation of measures that make it harder to register to vote. A case in point is the measures that were adopted by 14 States in 2014 that restricted voting in the 2016 elections. The measures included reductions in early voting opportunities and restriction in voter ID requirements. Another form of voter suppression is limiting voter access to polling stations. Limited number of polling stations is problematic as it limits access to the polling stations. Voters have to travel for long distances before they can get to a polling station, a factor that may discourage some of the voters from voting. Another form of voter suppression is increasing requirements for individuals arriving at the polling stations. For instance, barring people from arriving at the voting station early may prevent some voters from casting their ballot especially if they are unavailable for voting at other normal times. Lastly, voter suppression may take the form of complications that arise after voters have cast the ballot. Rejected or spoilt votes have been shown to be more prevalent in States with minority ethnic communities. The rejected votes do not count towards the final vote, which limit minority individuals from having a say in whom they would want to represent them in political offices.

Question 76

20 / 20 pts

Examine the ways in which the concepts of judicial restraint, judicial activism, original intent, and a living constitution are connected to one another. Which of these concepts is the most/least advantageous for racial and ethnic minorities and why?

Your Answer:

Judicial restraint limits judges’ power, and in this way, maintains that the ruling of the court should be based on the Constitution. Judges are only allowed to strike down laws if they are against the Constitution. On the other hand, judicial activism gives judges the power to make changes to correct legal injustices in the Constitution. Judges may make changes to various laws if they determine that they undermine the rights of various groups within the society. Judges may also extend the meaning applied to various laws or statutes.  The interpretation of original intent refers to the judges’ intention to determine the original meaning of a particular law or statute. When making a ruling, judges rely on the original intention of the Constitution. On the other hand, a living Constitution refers to the view that the Constitution holds a dynamic meaning. Therefore, judges may make rulings based on the application of the law or statute to reflect the needs and expectations of the society.

Judicial restraint is related to the original intent of the constitution. Both concepts are aligned with ensuring that the original intention of the Constitution is achieved without consideration to implications of the law. On the other hand, the concepts of judicial activism and the living Constitution are interconnected as both are aligned with ensuring that the constitution is relevant to the current needs of the society. Judicial activism and the living Constitution both consider that the society may have undergone tremendous changes since its formulation. As a result, the concepts mainly regard the Constitution as a guide that provides guidelines on the decisions and rulings of the court. In contrast, judicial restraint and the original intent of the constitution only consider the view of the original drafters of the Constitution when making rulings and decisions.

 Judicial activism provides judges with the power to create social policies when needed in various circumstances. Historically, judicial activism has been the most advantageous for racial and ethnic minorities. A case in point is the Brown v. Board of Education, which was a 1954 United Supreme Court ruling that proposed the desegregation of public schools. The ruling overturned the stare decisis order that requires courts to stick to the decisions and rulings of previous courts. The Supreme Court did not rely on previous court judgments when making decisions on segregation of public schools. Rather, it interpreted that the 13^th and 14^th Amendments of the Constitution gave American citizens the rights to civil rights, which include the right to education.