The purpose of this discussion is to understand the context and resolution in three notable Supreme Court cases. The resolutions generated within the U.S. political system are consistent and multidimensional. It is possible to establish significant conclusions from existing research. Information for this analysis was selected from the relevant textbook in order to gain the most precise and articulate representation of facts and events.

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"Supreme Court Resolutions"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

Minor v. Happersett (1875) was a resolute Supreme Court case that had significant effects on the U.S. political system. In this case, the court upheld that women did not have the right to vote. Taking place in Missouri, it was upheld that those state laws had a significant impact and would take priority to the incumbent federal laws. This essentially declared that state’s rights to only honor male voters would take precedence over federal government standards. This decision was reversed by the nineteenth amendment and determined a great accomplishment for women (Lindsay et al. 133).

Chief Justice Earl Warren made a significant decision regarding judicial concerns and representation. In Reynolds v. Sim (1964) there was a landmark resolution reached by the Supreme Court that influenced the progress and development of the legislative and political system in the United States. It determined that electoral districts must be equal in population in the event of chamber elections. This is not a requirement in the United States Senate. The influence of the state population on election outcomes would ultimately influence progress in both northern and southern states at the time. It was an issue that determines the Electoral College results in multiple levels and dimensions (Lindsay et al. 163).

Myers v. U.S. (1926) was a controversial case regarding the exclusivity of power held by the president and executive branch of government. Approval that can be attained from the Senate is important based on the viable opportunities presented by the legislative branch. Ultimately the Supreme Court upheld that the President is able to remove branch officials from the executive branch. This would be allowed regardless of the approval from the Senate. The decision to cultivate a unique executive branch that was able to operate autonomously was a controversial one due to the complex outcomes that would take place in years after. The Supreme Court contributed to the development of historic perspectives and themes in the presidential office. It also contributed to a unique sense of power maintained in one office of government. This was without the usual checks and balances of the other branches being able to address decision making and strategies. The implicit interpretation that Presidents could maintain the executive branch was significant because it identified other officials in the branch as extensions or part of the President. These were significantly controversial decisions which allowed presidents at the time to act based on their sole judgment rather than the cumulative decision of multiple government branches (Lindsay et al. 207).

It is clear in all three of these Supreme Court cases that resolutions were reached. Despite the difficult moral nature of individual events and circumstances the final decisions were effective and led to significant results each time. The importance of these changes was vast due to the impact on future Supreme Court decisions. Each of these cases determined a violation of rights or power that was addressed within the judicial system. While the outcomes were unique and based on the individual cases it is valuable to identify the core aspects of decision making as well as the integration for new legislation that took place after. These cases were notable and can be understood within the greater context of institutional reform and the balance of power within the American democracy.

    References
  • Lindsay, Thomas K., and Gary Dean Glenn. Investigating American Democracy: Readings Core Questions. Oxford University Press, 2013.