1. Ruth Wilson Gilmore suggests that if we removed all the white people from the story, then capitalism wouldn’t be racial anymore. This is a way of saying that the benefits and privileges given to people seen as white are deeply embedded in our economic and social systems, which often disadvantage others, especially people of color as we can see from the examples of slavery and apartheid. According to her argument, racism is created by and used to support these inequalities, ensuring that resources and opportunities are not distributed fairly.
   
   
2. Gilmore argues that the criminal justice system helps make criminals by unfairly targeting and punishing certain groups, particularly the poor and people of color. By labeling people as criminals, the system not only punishes them but also keeps them marginalized, making it harder for them to fit back into society and increasing the chances they’ll end up in trouble again. She suggests that these problems are not because of the individual’s actions alone but because of how the system treats them. She gave the example of California aggressively building prisons and prisons since the 1980s instead of focusing on creating better societal infrastructures such as public universities or community parks.
   
   
3. Towards the end of her video, Prof. Gilmore talks about the “liberation struggle” as a movement that aims to break down the unfair systems of racial capitalism and create a fairer society. This isn’t just about making small changes but rethinking and changing the whole system to remove biases and inequalities. This struggle requires people from different backgrounds to work together and understand how issues like race, class, gender, and the environment are connected. Gilmore sees it as a long-term effort to fight injustice and imagine new ways of living where fairness and justice are at the core. I agree with her stance that there’s a need for collective work. The word choice of “radical dependency” fits perfectly with her argument as we’ve been designed to be interdependent on each other.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Wal-Mart case that the women’s class action lawsuit could not proceed as a class action. ​ The Court unanimously ruled that the women’s additional demand for back pay could only belong in a b(3) claim, which was not the classification under which the plaintiffs had filed. ​ The Court also ruled, in a split 5-4 decision, that the class represented in the case failed to meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23, which states that there must be “questions of law or fact” common to the class. ​ The majority argued that the class did not share a common problem and a common solution, as the alleged discrimination varied among the 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees. ​The disagreed opinion argued that the evidence showed a common culture of sexism at Wal-Mart and that the class should be allowed to proceed. ​

The Supreme Court justified its decision in the Wal-Mart case by focusing on two key issues: the classification of the lawsuit and the requirement of commonality. ​First, the Court ruled that the women’s additional demand for back pay, which would amount to millions or even billions of dollars, could only belong in a b(3) claim. ​ The plaintiffs had filed their lawsuit as a b(2) class action, seeking injunctive relief (asking Wal-Mart to change its policies or practices regarding alleged discrimination against women employees). ​ The Court determined that the inclusion of back pay in the lawsuit misclassified it, compromising the women’s class status and sending them back to square one.

1) The court system is better at protecting individual rights mainly because judges don’t face the same political pressures as elected officials. They can make decisions based on what’s right according to the law, without worrying too much about public opinion or reelection. A great example of this is the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954. The Supreme Court ruled that segregated schools were unconstitutional, a decision that was necessary for advancing civil rights but might have been too politically sensitive for elected officials to handle at the time. This shows how the courts can stand up for what’s right, even when it’s not the popular thing to do.

2) I consider the U.S. Supreme Court an anti-democratic part of our government because, unlike most other government roles, justices are appointed instead of elected. This is a stark contrast to how we choose Presidents or Congress members, who are directly elected by the people. The rationale behind appointing judges, as explained in “Federalist #10,” is to ensure the judiciary remains independent of political swings and populist influences, intended to safeguard minority rights and maintain consistent legal standards.

During his presidency, Donald Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. These appointments tilted the court’s balance sharply to the conservative side. A major outcome of this shift was the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which drastically changed the legal landscape around abortion rights in the U.S. How does that represent the Federalist #10 idea of safeguarding minority rights?!

1. P. Williams writes about how the “war on terror” is different from any war before because it’s fought against an enemy that could be anywhere, making us scared of almost anyone. It’s hard to have a conversation about what’s really happening without fear taking over. She highlights how every scary situation leaves us with unanswered questions and fears, leading to more terror. Williams mentions some people suggest using truth serums on those who won’t talk, but that idea misses the point because we can’t read minds, which shows we’re relying more on fear than the actual facts.

2. The “Roving Wiretaps” part of the Patriot Act allows the government to listen in on any communication device someone might use with just one warrant. People are concerned this could lead to the government spying on anyone who talks to the suspect, infringing on our Fourth Amendment rights that protect us from unwarranted searches and defend our privacy.

3. “Sneak and Peek” warrants let authorities search someone’s home or business without telling them immediately. This practice has raised alarms about privacy and whether it violates the Fourth Amendment, which usually requires the government to inform individuals if they’re going to search or take their property. To me, it seems like a fine grey line between security measures and individual rights.

1. The “Establishment Clause” is part of the First Amendment and basically means the government can’t set up its own religion or favor one religion over others. It’s there to make sure there’s a clear line between church and state, so everyone has the freedom to follow their own beliefs. The “Lemon Test” comes from a court case and is a three-part check to make sure laws about religion are fair. For a law to pass this test, it must have a non religious reason, not help or hurt a religion, and not get the government too involved in religious matters. This helps keep government actions neutral when it comes to religion.

2. Yes, burning the American flag is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. This was decided in a Supreme Court case called Texas v. Johnson in 1989. The court said that even if many people find flag burning offensive, it’s a form of expressing an opinion, and that’s protected speech. This shows how the First Amendment protects our right to say or do things, even if others don’t like it, as long as it’s a form of expressing ideas.

3. Saying “I’m taking the Fifth” means someone is choosing not to answer questions so they don’t accidentally say something that could get them in trouble with the law. The Fifth Amendment protects people from having to testify against themselves. This right is a big deal in the U.S. legal system because it means you can choose to stay silent if you think answering might lead to you being charged with a crime. It’s a way to protect yourself from being pressured into saying something that could be used against you in court.

1) Describe the primary differences in the role of citizens in government, among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems.

In a federal system, citizens have the opportunity to participate in both the national and subnational levels of government. ​ They elect representatives of the national government, such as the president and members of Congress, who handle national matters. ​ They also elect representatives of the state governments, such as the governor and state legislature, who handle matters within their regions. This allows citizens to have a say in both national and local policies and ensures that different levels of government cooperate and interact with each other. ​

In a confederation system, citizens have a more limited role in government. The central government’s ability to act depends on the consent of the subnational governments. ​ The subnational governments have more power and authority, and the central government is subordinate and weak. ​ Citizens may have more influence at the subnational level, where decisions are made by their local governments.

In a unitary system, citizens have a more centralized role in government. ​ The national government holds significant authority and power, and subnational governments are dependent on the national government. ​ Citizens have the opportunity to participate in the national government through elections and other forms of political participation. However, decisions and policies are primarily made at the national level, and citizens may have less influence at the local level.

2) Briefly explain how you understand the system of division of power.

The system of division of power, specifically in the context of federalism, refers to the distribution of governmental authority between two levels of government: the national government and subnational governments (such as state or local governments). 

3) How does the federal government shape the actions of state and local governments? Write your answer based on doing a bit of research on how the federal government has influenced the actions of NY state and local governments, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government has played a significant role in shaping the actions of New York state and local governments. They’ve provided financial assistance through programs like the CARES Act to bolster healthcare systems, support businesses, and enhance testing efforts. Additionally, federal agencies like the CDC have issued guidelines on safety measures such as wearing masks and social distancing, which New York has implemented. Emergency declarations have allowed New York to prepare for and respond to the crisis, while collaboration between federal, state, and local authorities has ensured a coordinated approach. Lastly, the federal government has facilitated vaccine distribution, working with New York to administer vaccines according to federal guidelines.

1. The concept that “faction” reminds me of is the idea of class interests and divisions. In the document, it is mentioned that the framers of the Constitution were concerned about the “turbulence and follies of democracy” and the threat of the “propertyless majority.”

2. According to Federalist #10, the source of wealth (private property) is the “various and unequal distribution of property [that is, wealth].” ​ The factor that explains why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property, and others don’t (thus remaining poor), is the unequal distribution of property. ​ Those who hold property and those who are without property have distinct interests in society.

3. No, I disagree with the explanation of wealth and poverty as presented in Federalist #10. While the text points to “the diversity in the faculties of men” as a reason for differences in property ownership, this perspective overlooks many societal and structural factors. Simply attributing wealth accumulation to individual abilities and efforts fails to account for systemic inequalities, such as access to education, discrimination, and historical advantages or disadvantages that significantly influence economic outcomes.

4. The core mission or “first object” of the US government, according to the reading, is “the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property.” The government is there to ensure that those who can accumulate wealth are not hindered by those who may become impoverished in the process. ​ This mission is aimed at safeguarding the interests of the propertied class and maintaining the existing class structure.

It was surprising to learn that the government’s role was primarily to protect the interests of a wealthy minority rather than the majority. However, this perspective shifts when considering Abraham Lincoln’s famous assertion that the government should be “of the people, for the people, by the people,” highlighting a move towards a more inclusive approach to governance.

5. Yes, I was surprised to learn that Federalist #10 argues against a pure democracy in favor of a republican form of government. This preference is rooted deeply in the framers’ concerns over protecting the interests of the wealthy few from the majority. The framers, being affluent and influential themselves, were wary of democracy—considering it “the worst of all political evils.” They feared that democracy could lead to the “turbulence and follies” seen as inherent to it, essentially allowing the propertyless majority to potentially rise against the propertied class and upset the existing social order.

1. The statistic on wealth inequality in the US that made the biggest impression on me discussed in the reading was that the top 1 percent of the population owns between 40 and 50 percent of the nation’s total wealth, which is more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent. ​ This is a staggering level of wealth concentration and highlights the extreme disparity between the rich and the rest of the population. It is concerning to see such a small fraction of the population holding such a large portion of the wealth, while the majority of people struggle to make ends meet.
   
   
2. Living in a society with big differences in wealth can lead to a few key issues. First, when wealth is unevenly distributed, it can cause people to become unhappy and lead to public protests. This happens because many feel the system is unfair. Second, if you’re born into a family without much money, it’s much harder to get ahead in life with the lack of education and support. This makes it tough to break out of poverty and can keep the gap between rich and poor wide across generations.
   
   Also, these wealth gaps affect more than just income. People with less money often can’t access the same quality healthcare and education as those who are wealthier. This means they’re at a disadvantage when it comes to improving their situations and living healthier, more educated lives. In short, wealth inequality doesn’t just mean some people have more money than others; it impacts people’s health, their opportunities for a better life, and their overall well-being.

1. The social class that wrote the Constitution was the wealthy and affluent class, often referred to as the “gentlemen” or the “Founding Fathers.” ​ They were motivated by their own class interests and the desire to protect their wealth and property. ​ They wanted to establish a strong central government that would serve their financial and commercial interests, protect their possessions, and ensure the payment of debts to wealthy private creditors. ​
   
   The class that was excluded and not allowed to participate in the process of writing the Constitution included slaves, indentured servants, men who did not meet the property qualifications for voting, and women.
   
   
2. Based on the readings, I would say that the social class structure of early United States society was different from ours today, though this doesn’t necessarily mean that I think our current system is egalitarian. Here are a couple of reasons why it’s different:
   
   In early America, only white males with sufficient property ownership were able to vote and participate in politics which accounted for less than 10 percent of the total adult population. Not only did this made them have greater control and influence but caused a lack of social mobility for the rest, making it even more difficult for individuals from lower classes to move up the social ladder than now.
   
   In contrast, today’s social class structure in the United States is more fluid, with greater opportunities for social mobility and a broader distribution of wealth and power. While income inequality and disparities still exist, there are now mechanisms in place to promote equal opportunities and social mobility, such as education, employment laws, and social welfare programs aimed to benefit the majority unlike in the past.
   
   
3. The people who wrote the Constitution were afraid of democracy because they were primarily concerned with protecting the interests of their own wealth and socioeconomic status, not the majority of the population. According to the reading, they believed that democracy, ruled by the common people, was the “worst of all political evils” and that the propertyless majority posed a threat to the established social order. ​ They wanted to construct a government that would maintain the appearance of a popular government while minimizing the power and influence of the majority so they could continue to enjoy their privileged status without being threatened.