The purpose of politics may be defined as maintaining some set of mostly legal principles or institutions. In such a scenario, certain institutions and values political understanding become almost equal to the genuine legal understanding and comprehension of the same values or institutions. Second, the political realm may see the law as nothing more than a tool for achieving certain political ends. In this instance, politics has no stance toward the rule of law. In conclusion, political actors may see the rule of law as a barrier to achieving certain political aims. One of two things may happen here: politics wins, or the law loses (Kelsen, 2022). In the first scenario, political actors impose their solutions without regard for the rule of law. In contrast, in the second scenario, the independence of the rule of law is protected by the highest courts’ decisions or by other measures taken by intellectuals, lawyers, associations, the public, and organizations, to halt the illegal actions of political actors.
Legislation and government each construct their own unique versions of the world. Sometimes there is overlap between the two images, and other times there isn’t. But the law should not be applied to distinguish between enemies on the basis of merely political considerations. As a result, it becomes necessary to clearly demarcate “ours” from “yours,” or in its most extreme form, friend from foe. As a result of the latter, the rule of law loses its independence and becomes subservient to political considerations. This article examines the role of the law in politics via the lenses of abortion, gun control, Marbury v. Madison, and the governing elite.
Abortion
The Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Roe v. Wade means that abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution as a matter of right for American women. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobb’s v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the political process is free to decide how to handle the sensitive topic of abortion. What does this entail? At first look, this seems to return the law to its status before the Roe v (Kelsen, 2022). Wade’s decision in 1973. Each state has the option of upholding abortion rights or passing legislation criminalizing the procedure. More than half of the states are predicted to ban abortions entirely or almost entirely. Because of Roe v. Wade, abortion is now debated on the political stage. Conservative politicians have been ranting about their opposition to abortion rights for decades, and they have no plans to stop now (Mason, 2019). It’s conceivable that abortion bans will be enforced far more strictly than they were before 1973. More physicians and women will go to jail for breaking abortion restrictions in states after Roe than ever before.
As an example, conservative legislators in Missouri are considering a measure that would make it illegal for a woman to leave the state for an abortion. There is a movement afoot in certain jurisdictions to ban post conception birth control methods including IUDs and the morning-after pill (Mason, 2019). Some states may pass legislation mandating the implantation of all embryos created via medical techniques like in vitro fertilization. Claims will be filed, and the Supreme Court will be required to determine whether or not the Constitution imposes any constraints on states or even if the issue should be left solely to the democratic process.
Gun control
Despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans want tougher gun controls, current legislation fails to reflect this consensus. The functioning of the policy-making and its political system procedures determines the extent to which the gun lobby as well as cultural views about weapons may thwart the majority support effectuation for more regulation (Montez et al., 2020). Reforming parts of the political system like campaign financing rules and gerrymandering, which give the gun lobby its strength, may be necessary for the adoption of violence reduction programs. When the political system is reformed, it may change who gets to sit on the judicial and executive councils and make policy. In addition, initiatives at the ballot box, municipal legislation, and private lawsuits all provide other opportunities to influence policy (Kelsen, 2022). Each of these possible routes has major roadblocks that make successful action regarding gun policy change less likely (Montez et al., 2020). However, with the 2012 school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, and the 2019 nonschool indiscriminate mass shootings in Ohio and Texas, the winds of reforms or change may also be stirring since gun control advocacy organizations have expanded their financial and organizational power.
Marbury v. Madison
Although the retiring President Adams John had appointed William Marbury as a judge of the peace in 1801, incoming Secretary of State James Madison refused to hand over the document to him (deButts, 2019). So, Marbury took legal action to get his hands on it. An integral part of the “checks and balances” system designed to prevent any one arm of the American Federal Government from being too dominant, Chief Justice Marshall John created the notion of judicial review with his ruling in Marbury v. Madison.
An unconstitutional law is null and void. For the first time, the Supreme Court ruled that a statute approved by Congress and then signed by the President was unconstitutional, with Chief Justice John Marshall penning the decisive opinion. The Constitution does not explicitly provide the Court this authority. On the other hand, Marshall thought the Supreme Court must play a similar function to Congress and the president (deButts, 2019). When defending the Constitution, the Federalist, James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton declared that “you must first empower government to rule the ruled; and in the following place require it to control itself.” The Constitution’s framers had intended for the legislative and executive branches to check and balance each other and the judicial branch.
It is within Congress’s purview to impeach as well as remove any federal officer, even the President or a judge, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The President may select justices to the “Supreme Court” with the Senate’s advice and consent, and he has the power of the veto to limit Congress’ actions. The Supreme Court’s place in this complex framework was unclear. Therefore, it was necessary for a powerful Chief Justice such as Marshall to create the notion of judicial review in order to complete the triangle framework of checks and balances. Although no statute had been ruled unconstitutional prior to the Scott Dred Scott decision in 1857, the Supreme Court’s authority to strike down state and federal that run counter to the Constitution, which has never before been significantly disputed.
“The Constitution of America was not meant to fit us as a strait jacket,” Woodrow Wilson once stated. The greatest strength of this material is found in its adaptability. The writers of the Constitution are typically held up as wise because of their ability to hold back. They refrained from adding unnecessary details to the overarching text. They were pleased with setting up a system of governance with checks and balances to prevent abuse of power (deButts, 2019). After the Marbury v. Madison ruling by Justice John Marshall, the United States finally established a government that could pass, interpret, and enforce laws in the face of difficult conditions.
Ruling class
The power elite—government, large business, and the military—rules society and serves its own interests, according to Mills. Mills claimed power elite members socialize and serve on corporate, charity, and other boards. After retiring, cabinet ministers, senators, and high military leaders typically become company CEOs. Corporate CEOs often become members of the cabinet and other political officials. This elite circulation lets them rule America. Mills’ power-elite model is prominent, although alternative elite models exist. They disagree with Mills’s governing class composition. As Mills mentioned, some view the ruling class as largely enormous businesses and wealthy people, with the military and government supporting their needs instead of being part of it (Milanovic, 2019). According to G. William Domhoff (2010), the ruling class is the wealthiest 0.8% to 2% of the people, who control over half the nation’s wealth, participate on the board of directors, and belong to similar social clubs as well as other voluntary groups. Their control of companies and other political and economic entities helps them dominate American politics and life.
Elite ideas indicate the state is more independent than Mills realized. The government supports or opposes the ruling class as well as corporate interests (Milanovic, 2019). These ideas argue that relative autonomy helps the state maintain legitimacy because if it continually sided with the affluent, it would seem prejudiced and lose support. Thus, the state’s relative autonomy maintains ruling class power by making the public believe the state is unbiased when it is not. The government sometimes supports the corporate interests and the ruling class and sometimes opposes them. These ideas argue that relative autonomy helps the state maintain legitimacy because if it continually sided with the affluent, it would seem prejudiced and lose support (Milanovic, 2019). Thus, the state’s relative autonomy maintains ruling class power by making the public believe the state is unbiased when it is not
Conclusion
National and international law affect politics in three ways: as means, goal, mean or hindrance. First, politics—defined as the political actors or political mind —can aim for legal ideals or institutions like legal equality, the innocence presumption, or privacy rights. In this scenario, politics protects legal equality or privacy, just as the law does. Second, politicians might see the law as a tool for political ends. In this instance, politics is neutral toward the law, defining and achieving its political aims in line with legality as well as legal equality. Third, legality may hinder political ambitions. Here, politics or law wins. In the first case, politics implements its alternatives at the expense of the country’s rule of law for instance, the legislature makes laws that provide the executive branch the most discretionary powers; or even politics tends to leave the laws unchanged, but does not act according to them, whereas in the second case, international law is often preserved by the highest national or international, or by any other measures undertaken by lawyers, and intellectuals.
References
Kelsen, H. (2022). What is justice?: Justice, law, and politics in the mirror of science. Univ of California Press.
Montez, J. K., Beckfield, J., Cooney, J. K., Grumbach, J. M., Hayward, M. D., Koytak, H. Z., … & Zajacova, A. (2020). US state policies, politics, and life expectancy. The Milbank Quarterly, 98(3), 668-699.
Mason, C. (2019). Opposing abortion to protect women: transnational strategy since the 1990s. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 44(3), 665-692.
Milanovic, B. (2019). Capitalism alone: The future of the system that rules the world. Harvard University Press.
deButts, D. R. (2019). A Game Theoretic Analysis of Marbury v Madison: The Origins of Judicial Review. James Blair Historical Review, 9(2), 2.
write