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?

When Ruth Gilmore says capitalism will stop being racial capitalism when all the white people disappear, she’s pointing out how “whiteness” is tied to power in society. Basically, the system is set up in a way that benefits white people—whether it’s in terms of wealth, job opportunities, or even how the law treats them. So, it’s not just about skin color; it’s about how white people, in general, hold the power. This connection between “whiteness” and racism isn’t just about individual hate or prejudice, it’s built into the whole system, and that’s what keeps racism alive. Racism is about these structures that give white people advantages and keep people of color at a disadvantage, whether people are aware of it or not.

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 says the prison system doesn’t just punish people for committing crimes; it actually creates criminals by labeling them that way. Once someone is labeled a “criminal,” it sticks with them. They have trouble finding a job or housing because that label makes them seem dangerous or untrustworthy. And the system doesn’t really fix the problems that lead people to crime like poverty or lack of education. Instead, it just locks them up and then makes it harder for them to get back on their feet once they’re out. I agree with her because once you’re labeled a criminal, it feels like that’s all society sees. It becomes way harder for people to move forward, and they often end up back in prison just because the system doesn’t help them break out of that cycle.

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

Prof. Gilmore talks about “liberation struggle” as the fight for a world where everyone has the same opportunities, freedom, and rights without being oppressed or held back because of their race or background. It’s about changing the systems that cause inequality, like racism or capitalism, and creating a society where people can thrive no matter who they are. Liberation struggle isn’t just about protesting or speaking out, it’s about transforming the systems that keep people down and making sure that everyone is treated equally. It’s a long-term effort to build a fairer world for everyone.

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 v. Dukes case, the Supreme Court decided that the women who were suing Wal-Mart couldn’t move forward with their class-action lawsuit. The women claimed Wal-Mart discriminated against them in pay and promotions, but the Court said their situations were too different to combine into one case. The key issue was something called “commonality”, which means for a class action lawsuit to happen, the people suing need to have a shared, common issue. Since the women’s experiences varied like where they worked or who their manager was. The Court decided they didn’t have enough in common to join together in a single lawsuit because of that each woman’s case had to be handled separately.

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.

I think the court system does a better job of protecting individual rights than elected officials like Congress or the President. One reason for this is that judges are supposed to be impartial and base their decisions on the law, rather than what’s popular at the moment. Elected officials often have to cater to public opinion to stay in office, which can lead to decisions that aren’t always fair. An example of this is the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education. In 1954, the Court ruled that segregating schools based on race was unconstitutional. At the time, many people supported segregation, but the Court’s decision protected the rights of African American students. This shows how the judicial system can stand up for individuals, even when society might not agree.

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.)

I understand why many people view the Supreme Court as anti-democratic since its justices are appointed rather than elected. Unlike the President or members of Congress, Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments, which can create a sense of separation from the public. It can seem unfair, especially since they have the power to make significant decisions without the pressure of re-election. However, I do believe there’s a good reason for this system. In Federalist # 10, Madison discussed how factions and majority rule can sometimes infringe on individual rights. By appointing judges, we aim to ensure that those making important legal decisions are focused on upholding the law and the Constitution, rather than simply following popular opinion. Many of the judges have educational backgrounds and are equipped to make informed decisions that protect everyone, not just the majority. So, while the Supreme Court may come off as somewhat undemocratic, it actually plays an essential role in defending our individual rights.

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?

In P. Williams’s essay, she talks about how the war on terror is different from traditional wars. What stands out to me is that the conflict isn’t just between countries or armies, it involves non state actors and global ideologies. Which makes it tricky because the battlefield isn’t always clear, and the enemies can be hard to identify.

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?

One major issue I see with the “Roving Wiretaps” in the Patriot Act is that they seem to violate the Fourth Amendment, which is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches. The wiretap allows the government to monitor multiple devices without needing a new warrant each time. This approach feels like it can invade our privacy and goes against the specific protections the Fourth Amendment is meant to provide.

3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?

The “Sneak and Peek” warrant is very concerning to me. It allow’s law enforcement to search a property without immediately notifying the owner. This really undermines the Fourth Amendment’s intent to keep us informed about searches. If I didn’t know that my place was searched, it would definitely feel like a violation of my rights!

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

When I think about the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, I realize how important it is for keeping the government from creating an official religion or showing favoritism toward one faith over another. This separation allows us to practice our beliefs freely without interference. To figure out if a law breaks this rule, courts use the Lemon Test, which comes from the Lemon v. Kurtzman case. This test checks if a law has a secular purpose, doesn’t promote or inhibit religion, and avoids too much government involvement with religious groups. IIf a law fails any part of this test, it’s considered unconstitutional, which seems fair for maintaining that balance.

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

When it comes to burning the American flag, the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. Johnson made it clear that it is protected as symbolic speech under the First Amendment. Even though many people find flag burning offensive, the ruling emphasized the importance of protecting all forms of expression, even the controversial ones.

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

When someone says, “I’m taking the Fifth,” they’re referring to the Fifth Amendment, which protects people from self incrimination. This means they have the right to refuse to answer questions that might make them look guilty. I believe this protection is really important for ensuring a fair legal 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 have a say in both national and state governments. They can influence policies at multiple levels since power is shared between the two. In a confederation, the central government is pretty weak, so most authority lies with individual states. This means citizens usually engage more with their state governments because the national government doesn’t have much power. In a unitary system, the central government holds most of the authority, and local governments mainly carry out its policies. Here, citizens often have less direct influence on what the national government does.

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

The division of power is all about how different levels of government share authority. In a federal system, we see a clear split between national and state powers, which helps create a balance. Both levels can operate on their own but still need to work together. This setup is important because it gives us, as citizens, more ways to get involved and have our voices heard.

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 set up programs like the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) to help small businesses. This program gave loans to businesses so they could keep their workers on payroll, even when times were tough. In New York, for example, local governments used this funding to support struggling businesses in their communities. It really showed how federal support could help state and local governments respond better to the crisis and keep people employed.

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

“Faction” makes me think of the concept of social classes and how different groups have their own interests. Just like we talked about how different economic classes can clash over resources and power, factions can create divisions that might lead to conflict.

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….”

James Madison suggested that wealth comes from private property, which is tied to people’s individual talent and abilities. He explained that people’s different “faculties” meaning their skills, intelligence, and capabilities allow some to accumulate wealth while others don’t. Those with better resources or talents can own more property, while those without those advantages remain poor.

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

I understand where he is coming from, but I think it oversimplifies things. While personal skills matter, there are also systemic issues, like access to education and job opportunities, that really influence wealth distribution. So, it’s not just about individual abilities or at least it shouldn’t be.

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.

Madison argued that the main job of the government is to protect property rights and maintain order. This surprised me a little because it feels like the focus is more on keeping the wealth of property owners safe rather than making sure everyone is treated fairly or helping those in need which is still our issue today.

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 the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government? Hint: think about how this question connects with the social classes…

No, I’m not really surprised. Madison was worried that a pure democracy could lead to the majority overpowering the minority, especially when it comes to property rights. He preferred a Republican system because he thought a smaller group of educated representatives could make better decisions, ultimately protecting the interests of wealthy property owners. It just shows how concerned they were about keeping their status and power intact.

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 Constitution was written by the wealthy elite, such as landowners and merchants, who wanted to protect their interests. The working class, including farmers and laborers, was largely excluded from the process and had no real influence.

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

Honestly, the social class structure has changed a lot since then. Back in early America, you had a strict divide between the rich and the poor. Nowadays, there’s a larger middle class and more opportunities for people to move up, but we still deal with wealth inequality. So, while we’ve made some type of progress, the gap between the wealthy and everyone else is still a big issue.

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 that were afraid of democracy because they thought giving too much power to an average person could threaten their wealth and status. They worried about “mob rule,” where the majority could overpower the elite. So, they created a system with checks and balances to make sure their interests were protected, reflecting their fear of losing control.

1.Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p. 29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why? One statistic that really hit me is that the wealthiest 1% of Americans own a huge percentage of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 50% barely own anything at all. It’s mind blowing to think about! It shows how a tiny group has so much power and resources, while many people struggle to make ends meet. It just makes you realize just how unfair the system can be.

2.What could be some of the implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities? Do you see this dynamic getting played out in everyday life in our society? How so? Example?

Living in a society with such a big wealth gap can lead to many issues. It creates frustration and tension when you see some people living in luxury while others struggle to afford basic needs. This inequality affects access to education and healthcare, too. For example, in my community and many others, wealthier neighborhoods have well-funded schools with great facilities, while schools in poorer areas often struggle with outdated materials and overcrowded classrooms. It feels really unfair because those in lower income areas are at a disadvantage from the start. This just shows how wealth inequality can impact everyday life and limit opportunities for many people.