(02.03, 02.05, 02.07 HC)In 2018, President Dоnаld Trump nоminаted Alex Azаr as Secretary оf Health and Human Services (HHS). Azar, who previously worked as a pharmaceutical executive and deputy HHS secretary under President George W. Bush, was a controversial choice due to his connections to the pharmaceutical industry. This nomination came at a time when there was increased scrutiny on prescription drug prices and access to healthcare. His confirmation process was marked by intense debate along party lines. Democrats were concerned about his past support for the Trump administration's efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which had provided health insurance coverage to millions of Americans.On the other hand, Republicans praised Azar's experience and believed he would be an effective leader for the department. Azar's hearings highlighted the ongoing national conversation about healthcare in America. Despite the contentious environment, the Senate confirmed Alex Azar on January 24, 2018, with a vote of 55–43. This confirmation reflected a mostly partisan split, with most Republicans supporting him and most Democrats opposing him. The hearings emphasized the deep divisions in Congress regarding healthcare policy and the government's role in regulating the pharmaceutical industry.Respond to all parts of the question. In your response, use substantive examples where appropriate. Referencing the scenario, describe the steps required to confirm a Cabinet member. Explain how the debate in the scenario reflects a tension between the power held by the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Explain how this scenario might impact bipartisan relations in government in the future.
(02.01, 02.06 HC)After the 2010 census, twо cоngressiоnаl districts in North Cаrolinа were redrawn to reflect population changes. District 1 was redrawn to include more Black voters so that it would be a "majority-minority" district and represent the interests of Black voters in the area. The Voting Rights Act allowed for this in certain circumstances. District 12 was redrawn using the same rationale into a strange snaking pattern to connect groups of African Americans into one district. The plan was challenged in the federal courts as racial gerrymandering.In Cooper v. Harris (2017), the Supreme Court decided the state's new districts violated the Constitution and were examples of racial gerrymandering. Justice Elena Kagan said in the majority opinion, "The Constitution entrusts states with the job of designing congressional districts. But it also imposes one critical constraint on the exercise of that power: racial classifications of voters are subject to strict scrutiny."Respond to all parts of the question. In your response, use substantive examples where appropriate. Identify a constitutional clause that is common to both Shaw v. Reno (1993) and Cooper v. Harris (2017). Explain how the facts in Shaw v. Reno and Cooper v. Harris resulted in similar holdings. Explain how the decision in Cooper v. Harris could affect the process of redistricting for congressional representation in other states.