The Pros And Cons Of Political Party Power

1392 Words6 Pages
There has been much speculation whether political parties have become too strong in American politics and if that is a good or bad thing. My belief is that political party power in the United States is just about right where I believe that there are some instances where political parties have been in situations where they have too much power and instances where it is moderate. First off, political parties are crucial to our democratic government because it is composed of a group of people that the constituents elect to represent their issues or achieve a common goal. Being part of a group that shares your common interests or goals is more powerful than tackling an issue by your self. It gives you more voice and power in government. Also, political…show more content…
By doing this neither side can have a more liberal nor more conservative view but a view that meets in the middle or are moderate like discussed in class with the diagram. The leaders of the party’s have to develop programs or laws that will lure more constituents to vote for their party and eventually support it. Achieving this task can help in undermining and stealing the opponents support base. Hispanic voters will be a very crucial base in the future and having their votes is very important in future elections for both parties. Both parties have to entice this group to vote for them and this would mainly be a important task for Republicans since they are very conservative and have a view on immigration that doesn’t favor Latino voters. So in the up coming years I believe that they have to change their views to try and get the support of this group or else it can prove to be very detrimental to them. Overall, I believe that competition between both groups and having to adjust to a growing Latino and minority base motivates the parties to try and create laws and programs to satisfy these groups. Therefore, I believe that political parties power are just right because they get their power from the people and by trying to expand their base of constituents is of most…show more content…
In one case talked about in the textbook, which was Roe v Wade, the outcome ruled that Texas’s view that abortion was a criminal act was unconstitutional. The majority of justices believed that right to privacy includes the right to have an abortion and this wasn’t found in written words in the constitution. The outcome of this decision was influenced from the other Supreme Court case of Griswold v Connecticut. Another important case we discussed in class was Brown v Board of Education and this was an example of judicial activism. This is an example of that because the ruling in the Plessy v Ferguson case that facilities are in fact “separate but equal” was over turned in the Brown v Board of Education case defying the stare decisis (textbook) of letting the ruling stand and incorporating the ruling in this case. People who oppose these rulings back their claim by stating that the judges took their own beliefs into consideration and ignored the rule of law. Therefore, they are undermining democracy and not strictly following the text of the constitutions. More importantly many who oppose this bring up the point that the justices are those who are suppose to strictly follow the text of the constitution and not base decisions on their perspective on the
Open Document