The purpose of politics may be defined as maintaining some set of mostly legal principles or institutions. In such a scenario, certain institutions and values political understanding become almost equal to the genuine legal understanding and comprehension of the same values or institutions. Second, the political realm may see the law as nothing more than a tool for achieving certain political ends. In this instance, politics has no stance toward the rule of law. In conclusion, political actors may see the rule of law as a barrier to achieving certain political aims. One of two things may happen here: politics wins, or the law loses (Kelsen, 2022). In the first scenario, political actors impose their solutions without regard for the rule of law. In contrast, in the second scenario, the independence of the rule of law is protected by the highest courts’ decisions or by other measures taken by intellectuals, lawyers, associations, the public, and organizations, to halt the illegal actions of political actors.

Legislation and government each construct their own unique versions of the world. Sometimes there is overlap between the two images, and other times there isn’t. But the law should not be applied to distinguish between enemies on the basis of merely political considerations. As a result, it becomes necessary to clearly demarcate “ours” from “yours,” or in its most extreme form, friend from foe. As a result of the latter, the rule of law loses its independence and becomes subservient to political considerations. This article examines the role of the law in politics via the lenses of abortion, gun control, Marbury v. Madison, and the governing elite.

Abortion

The Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Roe v. Wade means that abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution as a matter of right for American women. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobb’s v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the political process is free to decide how to handle the sensitive topic of abortion. What does this entail? At first look, this seems to return the law to its status before the Roe v (Kelsen, 2022). Wade’s decision in 1973. Each state has the option of upholding abortion rights or passing legislation criminalizing the procedure. More than half of the states are predicted to ban abortions entirely or almost entirely. Because of Roe v. Wade, abortion is now debated on the political stage. Conservative politicians have been ranting about their opposition to abortion rights for decades, and they have no plans to stop now (Mason, 2019). It’s conceivable that abortion bans will be enforced far more strictly than they were before 1973. More physicians and women will go to jail for breaking abortion restrictions in states after Roe than ever before.

As an example, conservative legislators in Missouri are considering a measure that would make it illegal for a woman to leave the state for an abortion. There is a movement afoot in certain jurisdictions to ban post conception birth control methods including IUDs and the morning-after pill (Mason, 2019). Some states may pass legislation mandating the implantation of all embryos created via medical techniques like in vitro fertilization. Claims will be filed, and the Supreme Court will be required to determine whether or not the Constitution imposes any constraints on states or even if the issue should be left solely to the democratic process.

Gun control

Despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans want tougher gun controls, current legislation fails to reflect this consensus. The functioning of the policy-making and its political system procedures determines the extent to which the gun lobby as well as cultural views about weapons may thwart the majority support effectuation for more regulation (Montez et al., 2020). Reforming parts of the political system like campaign financing rules and gerrymandering, which give the gun lobby its strength, may be necessary for the adoption of violence reduction programs. When the political system is reformed, it may change who gets to sit on the judicial and executive councils and make policy. In addition, initiatives at the ballot box, municipal legislation, and private lawsuits all provide other opportunities to influence policy (Kelsen, 2022). Each of these possible routes has major roadblocks that make successful action regarding gun policy change less likely (Montez et al., 2020). However, with the 2012 school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, and the 2019 nonschool indiscriminate mass shootings in Ohio and Texas, the winds of reforms or change may also be stirring since gun control advocacy organizations have expanded their financial and orga