American Government and Politics in the Information Age Paper Example

1. Interest Groups

Interest groups provide a means of representing people and serve as a link between the citizens and their government. They are associations of individuals and organisations formed by one or more shared concerns in a bid to attempt to influence public policy. Through interest groups, voices of individuals are harnessed together through the proper organisation and allow the individuals to participate in a way that is more effective than when they do it in small numbers or alone. Therefore, interest groups offer people a vital road for political investment.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

There are three basic ways interest groups attract members. One is by providing a sense of belonging and the pleasure of associating with others; two is by offering material discounts, for example, organised travel opportunities and insurance plans and; three, by offering the satisfaction of taking action for the sake of their beliefs or principles. These three major incentives can be termed as solitary, material, and purposive.

Interest groups offer such motivating forces since its exercises harvests benefits to everybody, regardless of whether included or not, thus offering to draw in individuals with a specific end goal to kill this free-rider issue. The American Association of Retired Persons with around thirty-five million individuals gets its tremendous number by charging an ostensible yearly enrolment expense and offering such material motivating forces as medical coverage and lessened costs for physician endorsed drugs.

2. Religion Clauses

Establishment clause and the free exercise clause are the two clauses of the first amendment that protect religious liberty. The constitutional text state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" (Baptist Joint Committee for religious liberty)

For the situation Bradfield v Roberts of 1899, where money related help was offered to a healing facility worked by a Roman Catholic establishment, by the administration, the Supreme Court decided that the subsidising was offered to the doctor's facility and not the essential association and was subsequently admissible.

In the 1947 Everson v Board of education, the Supreme Court kept up a New Jersey statute financing understudy transportation to schools, paying little heed to whether they were parochial or not. The court held that "neither a state nor the legislature can set up a gathering. Neither can pass laws which lean toward one religion over another. Neither can drive nor affect a man to go to or to avoid house of prayer without needing to or oblige him to keep up a conviction or scepticism in any religion. No individual can be repelled for drawing in or attesting religious feelings or doubts, for the house of prayer support or non-interest. No obligation in any total, sweeping or little, can be required to help any religious activities or establishments, whatever they may be called, or whatever edge they may get to practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can directly or unpretentiously, appreciate the issues of any religious affiliations or social affairs and the different way. In the outflows of Jefferson, the condition against the establishment of religion by law was required to erect a mass of division among church and State" (Munoz).

In the 1878 Reynolds v United States, the Courts maintained Reynolds' conviction of plural marriage. It expressed that "Congress can't pass a law for the administration of the Territory which might preclude the free exercise of religion. The principal alteration to the Constitution explicitly precludes such enactment." In a 1939 case including Jehovah's witnesses dealing without leaflets, the courts struck down hostile to littering laws that were against the association. For a situation where South Carolina denied joblessness advantages to Adele Sherbert, the Supreme Court in Sherbert v Verner (1963) held that states must have a "convincing enthusiasm" to decline to suit religiously persuaded conduct.

3. Structure of courts.

There are three levels court cases can be heard at both the state and federal governments, as provided for by the U.S. Constitution. Regardless, Federal Government judges are named by the President and affirmed by the Senate while California State court judges, for example, are picked through a game-plan for a given number of years and through elections. The structures are regardless in a general sense the same.

The two governments have each one court of the last resort. In the Supreme Court, a party may ask to audit a choice of the U.S. Court of Appeal while in the California State Supreme Court, a social gathering may ask the State Supreme Court to think about a choice of the District Courts of Appeal. In the courts of claim, the U.S. government has 13, and the state has six courts. In case Parties are frustrated with decisions, they may intrigue one of 12 Circuit Courts of Appeal yet Californian's records offered with simply the ninth circuit. The basic limit of the investigative courts is to choose if the law was associated adequately in the trial court. Bid courts involve three judges and don't use a jury. In the state court of advance, if parties are disappointed with a choice, they claim to one of six District Courts of Appeal.

In the third structure level, the nation has 94 government trial courts or region courts which are made by Congress with the expert of the constitution. The 94 courts are composed of 12 provincial circuits, every one of which has a court of bids. California as a state has four area courts. In the lower level, the state, with the energy of its constitution has built up 58 superior courts, one in every county. District courts work as redrafting courts in choosing bids from region courts and different managerial organisations.

4. Direct democracy

Coordinate majority rule government now and again called "unadulterated vote based framework" is a sort of vote based system in which all laws and game plans constrained by governments are directed by the all-inclusive community themselves, instead of by delegates who are picked by the all-inclusive community (Longley).

The constitution of California engages the general population towards coordinate majority rule government by; giving a ticket suggestion that is submitted to the electorate for an immediate vote and can adjust at least one of the articles of the Constitution. In the vicinity of 1978 and 1998, there were 14 endorsed poll suggestions, for example, that of making English the official state dialect in 1986 affirmed by an edge triumph of 73% to 27%. Another illustration is the suggestion number 210 of November 1996; brought through an initiative process, expanded the state minimum pay permitted by law and was affirmed by an edge of 61-39% (Griffin). The two noteworthy components given by direct democracy are the Initiative Constitutional Amendment and the Initiative Statutory Amendment.

As I would like to think, Direct Democracy is worthwhile as it gives subjects the rights to settle on issues of administration that influence them specifically. The citizen initiative process in the structure of a direct democracy gives a stage to individuals to represent themselves while in the meantime keeping the government in check. In any case, the procedure of direct majority rule government in California State should be streamlined and made open to the average citizen.

References

Baptist Joint Committee for religious liberty. n.d. Online. http://bjconline.org/first-amendments-two-religion-clauses/.

David L. Paletz, Diana Owen, and Timothy E. Cook. "American Government and Politics in the Information Age." The Interest Group System. Washington D.C: Flat World Knowledge, 2013. Print.

Griffin, Stephen M. "CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONALISM: TRUST IN GOVERNMENT AND DIRECT DEMOCRACY." JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 11.3 (2009): 551-595. Print.

Longley, Robert. "When Everybody Votes on Everything, Is it All Good?" ThoughtCo (2018). Online. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-direct-democracy-3322038.

Munoz, Vincent Phillip. "The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause and the Impossibility of its Incorporation." Journal of Constitutional Law 8.4 (2006): 588-590.