The courts became more critical than they were a few hundred years ago. The main reasons are the fact that the court manages all the federal and state legal procedures and provides clear interpretations of abstract constitutional concepts (Ginsberg et al. 68). In addition, courts in the modern era use factual information to make decisions, unlike courts systems of the past centuries, which operated primarily on the royalty’s opinions and judgment (Ginsberg et al. 593). Modern courts use the constitution as a basis of jurisdiction and aspire to maintain neutrality (Ginsberg et al. 593). The courts are more relevant in modern times due to the improved impartial judicial system and government of all legal procedures.
The idea of judicial independence is still valid because it promotes democracy in the legal system. Even though Supreme Court’s decisions are often political, they still represent accurate information regarding a legal case. It can be explained by the lengthy process of accepting and analyzing the cases and using the relevant data (Ginsberg et al. 615). Judicial independence provides an environment for impartiality in the decision-making process and increases the freedom of judges.
The courts are not always political tools because they manage many processes outside of politics. For example, the courts provide judgment in civil cases such as money compensations or private property issues (Ginsberg et al. 68). To provide better services, they should continue using methods of impartial judgments such as judicial independence and promote freedom of speech and accurate verification of the case data.
The president and the Senate should handle the nominations of justices to avoid political spectacles. The main reason is that one person cannot make a complex decision, and to achieve neutrality, senators aid him by providing their respective opinions. The senators should confirm the nominations process after the president’s nominations to establish fair and reasoned selection.
Welfare refers to the contributory programs that help citizens establish life according to social standards. Programs primarily provide support to people who do not earn enough money for basic daily needs (Gal and Haim 5). The welfare requirements should be adjusted according to the country and the state of society. They should include basic coverage for all citizens of the country. Some people are not able to have regular jobs due to health issues and require more assistance from the state and communities. As a result, they should receive more financial donations than ordinary people. Welfare programs should cover all people and provide extra support to people with disabilities.
The recipients of welfare should be all citizens who are not able to achieve the minimum conditions of everyday life. Such basic needs as social security, food, and shelter should be provided to all members of society. However, certain luxuries such as cars, jewelry, or even alcoholic drinks should not be obtained using social welfare. These commodities are often expensive and require more donations from people and organizations. In addition, the distribution of such luxuries can not be completely impartial because the need for luxury is often defined by subjective views. Welfare should cover only the basic needs of humans and emphasize aiding the people who are not able to fulfill them.
The U.S. should promote demilitarization and humanist ideals in its foreign policy. However, the current approach aims to maintain dominance in influencing world affairs by using military and economic powers (Sisson et al. 2). Instead of building military resources, the government should focus more on societal and domestic issues such as improving the health care delivery systems and providing higher quality education.
Building stable relationships with neighbors and other countries benefits the nation and economy. Establishing a friendly environment would improve the quality of life due to the economic improvements from trading and resource importing. Mutual agreements can lead to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and increased security (Johnson et al. 205). In conclusion, the U.S. should prioritize creating companionable connections with other countries to increase mutual benefits such as free trading and security.
The country should not send troops to other countries to assert authority or force others into submission because it harms both the invading and the defending nations. Some politicians used military troops to increase their approval amongst the voters (Johnson et al. 93). For example, John W. Bush directed the forces to countries such as Kuwait and Panama to gain public support (Johnson et al. 93). This should not take place in a democratic country because it only benefits the interests of politicians. The only condition under which it is appropriate to start a war is when a country is invaded by another. By maintaining military forces, the country aspires to protect its citizens from attacks and ensure peace. However, such measures should only be taken as a response to aggression. The country should not use military troops for the advantage of a few individuals and should only use forces to protect the residents.
Gal, John, and Haim Bleikh. “The Welfare System: An Overview.” State of the Nation Report, edited by Laura Schreiber, Taub Center, 2019, pp. 2-28.
Ginsberg, Benjamin, et al. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. W. W. Norton & Company, 2019.
Johnson, Richard, et al. Us Foreign Policy: Domestic Roots and International Impact. Bristol University Press, 2021.
Sisson, Melanie, et al. Military Coercion and US Foreign Policy: The Use of Force Short of War. Routledge, 2020.