Federalism, Juristocracy, and Religious Influence on Governance

Federalism, Juristocracy, and Religious Influence on Governance
[name]
[school/course]
[professor]
[date]Introduction
Federalism and Juristocracy
Influence of Biblical Belief to Governance
ConclusionIntroduction
Political systems all over the world define the government that each country utilizes to hold authority over and regulate its people. Some governments can be a democratic, republican, monarchic, or federal, and even military government. These types of governments match the kind of leader there is in a country (Blondel, 1968). For instance, the US is a federal government having separate and independent leaders of its states. On the other hand, Thailand is a monarchic government that has a constitutional monarchy system because of its history of dynasties ruling over the country. Every country is different in terms of government systems and structures. This difference brought about uniqueness in each nation. Thus, this paper will be discussing the federal government in contrast to the rising judicial supremacy ruling or the juristocracy. We will look into their concepts and how they contrast with each other. Federalism is a form of government that decentralizes power and funds in the country. Juristocracy, on the other hand, gives the judicial people in government power and authority outside of their jurisdiction. As we discuss these concepts further in the paper, it will reveal how they differ when it comes to governance. For sample countries, this paper will discuss the United States as an example of a federal government and, Hong Kong, and India as an example of a country that exercises juristocracy in their system. To further our discussion, we will link the relationship between politics and religion. We will look at how these two aspects have been influencing each other in terms of gaining people's trust and support.
Federalism and Juristocracy
The federal government is a type of ruling system that separates the country into autonomous states that are still under a central government. Each federal state will have its distributed and independent power that allows them to move and create their mandate without concerning the other federal state (Elazar, 1984). Some of the autonomous power that federal states have are the authority over educational institutions, local governments, and public health & safety within the state. Simultaneous to being self-governing and independent, these federal states are also under one central or federal government. The federal government holds specific powers that it may or may not share with the federal states in the country. Some of the mandates that may be applied by both the federal government and the federal states are land authority, borrowing of money, administration of courts, and law enforcement. It means that the federal government can apply the power to federal states, and the latter can apply it to its local governments. On the other hand, the federal government has sole national authority over taxation, foreign relations, constitutional amendments, and even war declaration. It entails that only the federal government can use these powers over the federal states (Elazar, 1984).
The political structure of a federal government comprises of the lawmakers (legislative), law implementors (executive), and law evaluators (judiciary). Each branch has respective duties to carry out as part of the federal government. The legislative branch is in charge of writing bills that will undergo discussion and approval before becoming laws. On the other hand, the executive branch handles the application of the mandates as per the existing policies. Lastly, the judiciary branch has to evaluate actions that have compromised the laws.
In a federal government, of the U.S. as an example, the judicial branch is in charge of the legal discourses. The Supreme Court is the highest position for judicial power and interprets laws for the legal issues in the country. Lower courts, on the other hand, hold the trials for the appeals and other legal violations. In the most basic sense, the judicial branch has mandates over matters that have compromised, violated, or ignored the law. It has no other power outside the Supreme Court because there are other branches in charge of other political matters.
However, in the 70s, a political trend developed a ruling system that has given the judicial power an extensive scope. In this system, formally called Juristocracy, the judicial branch holds mandate and authority outside their assigned duties. The judges would have jurisdiction over matters under the legislative branch or other political members (Dickovick & Eastwood, 2019). For instance, the judicialization of Hong Kong has given the judicial branch power to participate in "separation of powers, such as the limitation of its jurisdiction and the requirement of the legislative process" (Lin, 2016, p. 1078). In a sense, Juristocracy gives the judges more superiority in governance aside from their judicial powers.
The power play in Juristocracy invo...