1. Ruth Gilmore says that capitalism will stop being racial capitalism, when all the white people disappear from the story. What’s the connection between “whiteness” and racism, do you think?
   
   The connection between “whiteness” and racism is deeply rooted in historical and societal structures. Whiteness has been constructed as the norm or standard against which other races are judged, leading to the marginalization and oppression of non-white individuals and communities. Racism operates within systems of power, where those identified as white often hold privilege and dominance, perpetuating racial inequalities and injustices. Therefore, the link between whiteness and racism lies in the reinforcement of social hierarchies and systemic advantages afforded to those perceived as white.
   
   

2.Gilmore makes the point that criminals are actually being created by the criminal justice and prison system (she says “the category of ‘criminal person’ can be perpetuated”). According to Gilmore, how does that happen, how does the prison system create new “criminals“? Do you agree with her view?

Gilmore argues that the criminal justice and prison system contribute to the creation of criminals by perpetuating the category of the “criminal person.” This occurs through various means such as over-policing of marginalized communities, harsh sentencing practices, and the stigmatization of individuals who have interacted with the criminal justice system. Additionally, the lack of resources and support for individuals upon reentry into society further increases the likelihood of re-offending. I agree with Gilmore’s perspective as it underscores the systemic nature of criminalization and the role of institutions in perpetuating cycles of incarceration.

3. Describe how your understand what Prof. Gilmore – in the last part of her video – calls “liberation struggle”?

Prof. Gilmore refers to “liberation struggle” as a collective effort aimed at challenging and dismantling oppressive systems of power to create a more just and equitable society. This struggle involves various forms of activism, organizing, and resistance undertaken by marginalized communities and their allies. It seeks to challenge the status quo, advocate for structural change, and center the voices and experiences of those most impacted by oppression. Ultimately, the liberation struggle aims to transform social, political, and economic systems to ensure the liberation and empowerment of all individuals and communities.

1. What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what this legal terms means, as it is key to the court’s decision).

In the Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court ruled against allowing the class-action lawsuit to proceed. The Court’s decision hinged on the concept of “commonality,” which refers to whether the claims of the plaintiffs shared common legal or factual issues that could be resolved collectively. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient commonality among their claims to justify a class-action lawsuit. Essentially, the Court argued that the alleged gender discrimination was not the result of a company-wide policy or practice, but rather the actions of individual managers. Therefore, the Court reasoned that the claims lacked the necessary commonality required for class certification. This decision effectively made it more difficult for employees to pursue class-action lawsuits against large corporations for systemic discrimination, as each individual would need to prove their case separately rather than as part of a collective group.

1. In what ways is the court system better suited to protect the individual, than are the elected branches of government (such as Congress and the President; or the Mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly)? Give an example to illustrate your argument.

The court system, especially the federal judiciary, is better positioned to safeguard individual rights compared to elected branches like Congress or the President. For instance, in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court struck down segregation laws, highlighting the judiciary’s role in advancing civil rights. While elected officials might prioritize political agendas, judges strive for impartiality, ensuring decisions are based on constitutional principles. Additionally, the court system’s structure, with hierarchical organization and lifetime appointments, provides stability in protecting individual liberties over time.

2.Think about how federal judges get to become judges – unlike Presidents, Mayors and members of Congress (and other legislatures), they are not elected, but rather appointed. Many Americans have thus called the federal courts system, and especially the Supreme Court, anti-democratic PLACES IN OUR GOVERNMENT. Do you agree that the Supreme Court, for example, is an anti-democratic part of our government? What could be the reason for this way of choosing judges in federal courts? (HINT: think about our discussion of “Federalist #10”, and which social class plays a leading role in our government system.)

The Supreme Court’s appointment process, unlike the election of other government officials, has led to criticism of its anti-democratic nature. While appointed judges may lack direct accountability to voters, this system aims to ensure qualifications and expertise guide judicial decisions rather than political pressures. The choice of appointment over election reflects the Founders’ concern for safeguarding minority rights against majority tyranny, as outlined in Federalist No. 10. Additionally, the influence of social elites, who often play a leading role in government, contributes to the appointment system’s persistence. Overall, while the appointment process may seem anti-democratic, it serves to balance democratic principles with the need for an independent judiciary committed to upholding the rule of law.

1. Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”.

he Establishment Clause is like this rule in the First Amendment that says the government can’t pick a favorite religion or make laws that force people to follow a certain religion. It’s all about keeping religion separate from government stuff. Then, there’s this thing called the Lemon Test, which is basically a way to check if a law is cool under the Establishment Clause. It’s named after Lemon v. Kurtzman, this big court case from the ’70s. The Lemon Test says a law can’t have a religious purpose, its main effect can’t be about religion, and it shouldn’t get the government too tangled up with religion.

2. Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading.

Burning the US flag is indeed protected by the First Amendment. This was confirmed in the landmark Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson (1989). In this case, the Court ruled that flag burning is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson had burned an American flag during a protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. The Court held that Johnson’s actions were protected expression under the First Amendment, stating that “the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

3. What does it mean when someone says “I’m taking the Fifth”?

“I’m taking the Fifth” is something you hear when someone doesn’t want to answer a question because it might get them in trouble. It’s all about this Fifth Amendment thing that says you don’t have to say anything that could make you look guilty in a criminal case. So when someone “takes the Fifth,” they’re basically saying, “I’m not going to answer that question because I don’t want to incriminate myself.” It’s a way to protect yourself legally.

1. P. Williams writes in her essay, that the war on terror is a new type of a war. What’s new about it, how is it different from traditional wars?

Patricia Williams argues that the war on terror represents a departure from traditional wars because it involves combatting non-state actors, has a global reach, and lacks clearly defined enemies and objectives. Unlike conventional wars between nations, the war on terror presents unique challenges due to the elusive nature of terrorist threats and the need for a coordinated international response.

2. In what ways does the “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights? Which amendment(s) does it seem to violate and why?

The “Roving Wiretaps” provision of the Patriot Act raises concerns about violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. By allowing law enforcement to obtain warrants that apply to multiple devices or locations without specifying them, roving wiretaps could enable broad surveillance without sufficient judicial oversight, potentially infringing on individuals’ privacy rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

“Sneak and Peek” warrants, also authorized under the Patriot Act, raise similar Fourth Amendment concerns by allowing law enforcement to conduct searches without immediately notifying the property owner. This lack of transparency and notification undermines the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, potentially infringing on individuals’ privacy rights and due process.

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

In a federal system, citizens play a role in both the national government and the government of their respective states. They elect representatives to both levels of government and may participate in policymaking through various channels. In a confederation, citizens primarily interact with their state or regional government, as power is decentralized with little authority held by a central government. In a unitary system, citizens interact solely with the national government, as power is concentrated at the central level, and regional governments, if they exist, have limited authority.

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

The division of power refers to the distribution of authority between different levels of government. In federal systems, power is divided between a central government and regional governments, with each level having distinct areas of jurisdiction. This division aims to balance centralized authority with regional autonomy, fostering cooperation while preserving local control. Checks and balances mechanisms ensure that no single level of government becomes too dominant.

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 influenced the actions of state and local governments in New York through various means. This includes providing guidance and resources such as funding, medical supplies, and expertise to combat the pandemic. Additionally, federal mandates, recommendations, and emergency declarations have shaped state and local responses to the crisis, influencing policies related to public health measures, economic relief, and vaccination distribution. Federal regulations and guidelines have also impacted decision-making at the state and local levels, shaping strategies for containing the spread of the virus and mitigating its impact on communities.

1. What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of?

The concept of “faction” in “Federalist #10” reminds me of the idea of social conflict or class struggle that we’ve discussed previously. Just as factions represent groups with specific interests that may conflict with those of others, social classes can also be seen as groups with distinct economic interests that can sometimes be in opposition to each other.

2.According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), what is the source of wealth (private property)? What factor explains why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property, and others don’t (thus remaining poor)? This is a key question, because it shows how the authors of the Constitution thought about the difference between different classes of Americans! HINT: focus on the passage that begins: “The diversity in the faculties (WHAT DOES FACULTIES mean or refer to?) of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not les….”

In Federalist #10, James Madison discusses the source of wealth, which he attributes to the diversity in the faculties of men. Here, “faculties” refers to the various abilities, talents, and skills possessed by individuals. Madison suggests that the unequal distribution of these faculties leads to differences in the acquisition of property, with some individuals able to accumulate wealth through their talents and efforts, while others remain impoverished due to their lack of such advantages.

3.Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?

Whether one agrees with Madison’s explanation of wealth and poverty depends on their perspective. While Madison’s argument acknowledges individual agency and merit as factors in wealth accumulation, it overlooks systemic barriers and inequalities that can hinder certain groups’ access to property and economic opportunities. Factors such as historical injustices, discrimination, and socioeconomic disparities also play significant roles in shaping patterns of wealth and poverty.Factors such as historical injustices, discrimination, and socioeconomic disparities also play significant roles in shaping patterns of wealth and poverty. Personally, I disagree with Madison’s explanation as it fails to adequately address the structural and systemic factors that contribute to wealth inequality, thereby oversimplifying the complexities of socioeconomic dynamics.

4.What is the core mission (“first object”) of the US government? Does this surprise you, does it sound different from what our society today seems to suggest the core mission of the government is? Explain.

The core mission, or “first object,” of the US government according to Federalist #10 is to protect the rights of individuals and their property from the encroachments of factions. This mission prioritizes safeguarding the stability and prosperity of property-owning individuals, reflecting the concerns and interests of the American capitalist class at the time. This focus may sound different from contemporary perspectives that emphasize broader social welfare and equality, indicating a shift in societal priorities over time.

5.Given the discussion in questions 1-4, are you surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy, and supports a Republican (representative) form of government? Why would d the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government? Hint: think about how this question connects with the social classes…

It’s not surprising that Federalist #10 is not in favor of pure democracy and supports a republican form of government, considering the author’s concerns about the tyranny of factions. Madison, as a representative of the elite class, would likely fear the potential for majority rule to threaten the interests of property owners and undermine the stability of society. By advocating for a republic, Madison seeks to establish a system of governance that balances popular representation with safeguards against the unchecked power of the masses, thereby protecting the interests of the economic elite.

1.Based on the arguments presented in Readings 6.1 and 6.2, which social class wrote the Constitution, and which class was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process? In your comment, make sure you clearly specify the difference between the two classes by giving examples from the readings.

The social class that predominantly wrote the Constitution consisted of wealthy landowners, merchants, and creditors, as argued by Charles Beard in Reading 6.2. These individuals were economically privileged and sought to protect their own interests, such as property rights and economic stability. On the other hand, the class excluded from the constitutional process was the working class, particularly laborers and those lacking material wealth. Their voices and perspectives were marginalized, as they did not hold significant economic or political power. For example, Beard highlights the economic motivations of the framers, showing how their wealth and property interests shaped the Constitution to favor their class.

2.Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain.

The social class structure of early United States society was different from ours today. In the 18th century, the society was primarily agrarian, with a smaller industrial base, and was largely structured around agricultural landownership. Additionally, there were fewer layers of economic stratification compared to today’s complex capitalist society, with more distinct class boundaries. However, there are still parallels in terms of wealth inequality and the influence of economic interests on politics.

3.Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy? Hint: think about how to answer this question by discussing it in terms of social classes.

The people who wrote the Constitution were apprehensive about democracy because they feared the potential for majority rule to threaten their economic interests and property rights. The wealthy elite, who primarily composed the framers, were concerned that a purely democratic system would empower the working class and lead to redistributive policies that could undermine their wealth and privilege. Therefore, they crafted a system of checks and balances to temper the influence of democracy and preserve their own socioeconomic status.

What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each. 

Reading 4.3 distinguishes between owners and employees based on their relationship to wealth and labor. Owners are characterized as individuals or families who primarily live off investments and property income, while employees rely on wages and salaries earned through work. An example of an owner would be a wealthy stockholder who earns income from dividends and capital gains on their investments. On the other hand, an example of an employee could be a factory worker or office clerk who earns a paycheck for their labor.

How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?  

The quote by Adam Smith on page 28 underscores the fundamental role of labor in determining the value of commodities. Smith argues that the real price or value of goods and services is ultimately determined by the labor required to produce them. In essence, he emphasizes the centrality of labor as the foundation of economic value, highlighting its significance in the production process.

 What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?  

The main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is not an identity challenges the notion that class can be reduced to a mere label or category based on income or social status. Instead, the reading suggests that class structures are deeply embedded in societal systems of power and economic relations. Class is seen as a dynamic and complex phenomenon shaped by various factors beyond individual identification, such as access to resources, means of production, and social mobility.

How do you understand the argument Reading 4.4 makes when stating that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency?” What is this close form of dependency, and can you think of an example?  

When Reading 4.4 states that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency,” it refers to the interdependence between different social classes within the capitalist system. This close form of dependency manifests through the exploitation of labor by capitalist owners, who rely on the workforce to generate profits and sustain their wealth accumulation. An example of this dependency can be seen in the relationship between workers and employers in a factory setting, where workers depend on wages for livelihood while employers depend on labor for production and profit.