Public Health Policy Essay Assignment Paper

Article: “Supreme Court Rules States Can Punish ‘Faithless Electors'” by Steven Nelson, US News, July 6, 2020. Link: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-07-06/supreme-court-rules-states-can-punish-faithless-electors Main theme: The article discusses the Supreme Court’s ruling that states have the authority to punish “faithless electors,” individuals who refuse to cast their Electoral College vote for the presidential candidate who won the popular vote in their state. Summary: The article provides an overview of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case Chiafalo v. Washington, which addressed the issue of whether states have the power to punish electors who disregard their pledge to vote for the candidate who won their state’s popular vote. The Court ruled that states do have this authority, stating that “nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion.” The article also provides background on the Electoral College and the role of electors in the presidential election process. It notes that “faithless electors” have been rare in U.S. history, but have been the subject of increased attention in recent years.

Critique: While this article does not directly address public health policy, it is important to recognize the potential impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the political landscape and the ability of elected officials to implement public health policies. In particular, the decision highlights the important role of the courts in interpreting laws related to the election process, and how these interpretations can impact the outcome of elections and the ability of elected officials to advance policy goals. The article’s contribution to the field of the courts is its discussion of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution with regard to the Electoral College. By clarifying that states have the authority to punish faithless electors, the Court has provided guidance for states in their efforts to ensure that the presidential election process functions smoothly and fairly. In terms of the impact of the presidency and Congress on public health policy, this decision may have implications for future presidential elections and the ability of elected officials to implement public health policies through the election process. For example, if a state were to pass a law requiring electors to cast their vote for a candidate who supports a particular public health policy, the Supreme Court’s ruling suggests that the state would have the authority to enforce this requirement. Overall, this article highlights the complex interplay between the branches of government in shaping public health policy, and the important role of the courts in interpreting the laws and regulations that govern the actions of elected officials. It provides a useful perspective for discussions of the intersection of politics and public health, and the ways in which legal decisions can impact the ability of elected officials to address public health challenges.

Please support and upvote the answer