1. As Ruth Wilson Gilmore has said so astutely, capitalism will cease to be racial capitalism when “all the white people disappear from the story.” Whiteness is deeply implicated in both the structure and operation of capitalism, which sustains racial hierarchies. Here, “whiteness” is more than just a racial identity; it is a social and political construction that has served to justify and validate systems of exploitation and inequality. In this regard, whiteness has been at once beneficiary and enabler of the capitalist system, obtaining economic and social advantages for whites at the expense of people of color. The connection between “whiteness” and racism in this schema would be that whiteness operates as a signifier of privilege and power in capitalistic societies. Whiteness is tied to the economic structures benefiting from racial exploitation, whether through the enslavement of Black people, colonialism, or disproportionate extraction of labor and resources in many other ways from communities made marginal. Racism, in this sense, is not an individual prejudice but a systemic force that sustains these economic relations. According to Gilmore, dismantling racial capitalism would require dismantling structures upholding whiteness as a privileged racial identity, an exercise that calls for radical rethinking of economic and social systems built upon racialized inequalities. Thus, it is also a struggle against the social construct of whiteness and the privileges that come with it in the fight against racial capitalism.
2. Gilmore suggests that the prison system creates actively new “criminals” by labeling people as criminals and reinforcing that identity through the system of treatment. Individuals who go into the prison system are being punished, not only for their crimes, but also subjected to a system that will constantly reinforce their criminal status. The prison system often offers little in the way of rehabilitation or meaningful support, which means that once someone is labeled as a “criminal,” that label tends to stick, even after they are released. It not only punishes but also prevents them from easily reintegrating into society through curtailing rights, making jobs, housing, and social services difficult to access; these very factors may drive them back into criminal conduct as a survival strategy. This punishment-exclusion circle creates the concept that once a criminal, always a criminal. I do agree to a great extent with Gilmore’s view: the criminal justice system has often failed to address the very roots of crime, such as poverty, lack of education, and social inequality, and instead has focused more on punishment and incarceration. This will not only stigmatize individuals but also keep them in a vicious circle of crime. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in many instances where former prisoners, unable to find opportunities for reintegration, are forced into crime. Instead of changing, the system too often locks a person into the role of “criminal,” reinforcing rather than breaking the cycle.
3. In the last part of the video, Professor Gilmore frames “liberation struggle” as a process that involves contesting and tearing down systems that maintain racial capitalism and its constituent inequalities, including the criminal justice system. For Gilmore, the liberation struggle is less about reform of these systems but more about the radical rethinking and restructuring of the social, economic, and political systems that articulate oppression. It means confronting historical and current configurations of exploitation, domination, and racialization that marginalized communities face in their struggle toward a society with more equitable distribution of resources, opportunities, and power. I understand “liberation struggle” not only as a combat against the injustices of the present but also as the vision of a radically different world: the undoing of systems of racial capitalism that have created society, particularly those specific ways in which race and class intersect to create structural inequality. According to Gilmore, the liberation struggle is collective, long-term work, one that requires solidarity across various groups as well as a reimagining of what justice, freedom, and community look like outside the existing structures of domination. It is a movement in the sense that it works toward the structural transformation of power toward conditions where all individuals, especially those who have been historically oppressed, have the ability and opportunity to live a full and meaningful life.

In the Wal-Mart case, Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court denied the class action certification. The court ruled that plaintiffs over 1.5 million women accusing Wal-Mart of systemic sex discrimination did not satisfy an essential class-action requirement in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23, known as commonality. This effectively concluded the case and returned the plaintiffs to square one. Commonality is a legal standard that determines whether a group of plaintiffs can be treated as a single class in a class action lawsuit. Under Rule 23, one of the key requirements for certifying a class is that the claims of the class members must share common questions os law or fact. That means that the questions raised by the plaintiffs must be sufficiently alike so that they can be litigated together and not individually. In the case of Dukes, the court decided that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their discrimination claims were adequately unified to meet the requirements for commonality. The class consisted of 1.5 million women who allegedly suffered different kinds of discrimination; for example, different pay, different managers, and different regions. The Court felt that these individual differences meant plaintiffs did not share a common legal or factual issue that could be resolved in a single lawsuit. The majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia relied heavily on this lack of commonality among plaintiff’s claims. Scalia argued that to have a class action, the plaintiffs must show that they suffered under a common discriminatory treatment or the same cause of discrimination in a manner so that one solution would be applicable. Emphasizing, he said, “Women weren’t universally denied the same promotion or the same raise. The alleged discrimination wasn’t the result of a single policy or some sort of centralized plan. It was instead based on the discretionary decisions by individual managers at individual stores.” And there lacked any “glue” to hold together all plaintiffs’ claims in a single class action. Scalia said that without a clear common discriminatory practice that applied uniformly to all women across the country, it was impossible to adjudicate their claims as a single class. The courts decision focused on whether the plaintiffs claims were sufficiently connected, or “common” in a way that would justify handling them together in a single lawsuit. Scalia argued that the size of the class, and the diversity of their experience, made this impossible. The plaintiffs had sought both injunctive relief-that is, a change in Wal-Mart practices-and monetary damages (back pay for the discrimination), but the court ruled that because they were not all subject to the same policies or treatment these claims could not be addressed in one class action. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the dissent, felt that commonality had been interpreted incorrectly by the Court. According to her, what the claims of the women shared in common was the systematic gender bias prevailing at Wal-Mart, though unwritten as policy, everywhere within the firm. She said the plaintiffs need not prove that each individual faced the same discrimination but only prove that their claims were based upon a common discriminatory practice. This practice of male favoritism with respect to pay, promotion, and other opportunities was, in her view, sufficient to satisfy the commonality requirement. She noted that discretionary practices may also support systemic discrimination. The commonality requirement is core to class actions because it ensures that the court can effectively address the plaintiffs claims in a manner that is efficient and fair. If the claims in a way are too individual or too diverse, then the court may determine that the issues are better addressed in separate lawsuits. For example, if different workers at different Wal-Mart stores faced discrimination in radically different ways, each woman would have a different story about how she was discriminated against, making it more difficult for the court to address all their issues in one case.

1. I believe the court system is better at protecting individual rights than elected officials like Congress or the President because the courts are independent and not swayed by politics or public opinion. Judges serve for life, so they do not have to worry abou getting re-elected, which allows them to focus on applying the law fairly and impartially. The courts also have the power of judicial review, meaning they can overturn laws or actions that violate the Constitution or peoples rights, even if those laws are passed by elected officials. This independence is crucial for protecting individual rights from being ignored for political reasons. For example, courts can protect minority groups who might not have enough political power to secure fair treatment from elected officials. A well-known example of the court system protecting individual rights is Brown V. Board of Education. When the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. At the time, many elected officials in Southern states supported segregation, but the court stepped in to protect the rights of African American children, even though the decision was unpopular with many people. This shows how the court system can act as as safeguard against laws or actions that harm people’s rights, even when they are supported by elected leaders. In conclusion, I think the court system is better equipped to protect individual rights than the elected branches of government because it operates independently and can block laws that infringe on constitutional rights. The courts serve as an important check on the power of elected officials, ensuring that individual rights upheld even when political pressures might push for unjust policies. 
2. I don’t necessarily agree that the Supreme Court is an anti-democratic part of our government, but I understand why some people might view in that way. The fact that federal judges, including the Supreme Court justices, are appointed rather than elected means they are not directly accountable to the voters, which is a hallmark of democratic systems. This lack of electoral control contrasts with elected officials like the President or Congress members, who must respond to voter preferences. However, the reason for appointing judges rather than electing them is to protect the independence of the judiciary. If judges were elected, they might be influenced by public opinion or political pressures, which could undermine their ability to rule impartially based on the law, especially in cases involving constitutional rights. This system is similar to what Madison argued in Federalist #10, where he warned about the dangers of factions and how a republic with an independent judiciary can help control the harmful effects of majoritarian rule. The appointment process ensures that judges are chosen for their merit and experience, not their popularity or ability to campaign. While this may seem undemocratic, it helps maintain a judiciary that can make long term, stable decisions without being swayed by electoral politics. Additionally, since Presidents, who are elected by the people, appoint judges and Senators confirm them, the system still has democratic legitimacy. Ultimately, I believe the appointment system balances democracy with the need for an impartial judiciary that can protect individual rights and uphold the Constitution, even when the pubic opinion or political factions might oppose it. This process helps ensure that the courts remain a safeguard for rights and justice, free from the immediate pressures of the democratic process. 

1.The Establishment Clause prevents the government from establishing a state religion or favoring one religious convictions over others, ensuring religious freedom for all. The Lemon test determines if a law violates this clause, determines whether that law has a secular purpose, inhibits or promotes religion, and results in excessive government entanglement. However, to my understanding, this test is still applicable, especially in church-state separation

2. The Supreme Court, in Texas v. Johnson, ruled that flag burning is a form of figurative speech protected by the First Amendment. Though this act triggers the anger of many, the Court reasoned that free speech cannot be limited to acceptable speech. This case makes me realize that the US Constitution provides strong protection for free speech for American citizens.

3. The Fifth Amendment protects people from self-incrimination, meaning they cannot be forced to testify against themselves in criminal cases. This right prohibits any pressure put on a particular person to obtain information that will be used against him as much as his preservation is necessary for equal elements in the legal process.

1.P. Williams explains that war on terror is different from traditional wars. First, it targets non-state actors like terrorist groups rather than organized military forces. The tactics used are asymmetrical, focusing on guerrilla warfare and surprise attacks, which make conventional military strategies less effective. Additionally, the war on terror has a global scope, impacting multiple countries and requiring international cooperation. It also raises complex legal and ethical issues, particularly regarding human rights and the treatment of detainees. Finally, civilian populations often become involved in ways that blur the lines between combatants. These factors make the war on terror a unique and challenging conflict compared to traditional warfare.

2. The roving wiretaps provision of the Patriot Acts raises concerns about potential violations of the Bill of Rights. It seems infringe on the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and requires warrants based on probable cause, as it allows law enforcement to monitor multiple devices without specifying which one. This can lead to broad surveillance without sufficient justification. Furthermore, it may violate the First Amendment by chilling free speech and association, as people might hesitate to communicate freely knowing they could be watched. Lastly the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process, could be compromised if information gathered through these wiretaps is used against individuals without proper legal protections.

3. Sneak and peek warrants allow law enforcement to delay notifying property owners about searches. The key disadvantage of modern warrants compared to traditional ones is that the holder is not obliged to disclose the facts behind the warrant immediately, which concerns people’s privacy. I think this goes against transparency issues and may violate constitutional rights.

1.The Role of Citizens in Federal, Confederation, and Unitary Systems

When analyzing federal, confederation, and unitary systems, I observe that citizens’ participation in government varies significantly. The United States of America is a federal system of government; this implies that power is divided between the federal and state governments, giving citizens a voice in both. This clearly indicates that citizens can make local decisions through their state representatives while national choices can be made through the members of Congress. In a confederation, states retain most of the power; thus, citizens can participate more actively in local government but not in the central government. This structure can reduce the strength of the national government and its capacity to act on broad agenda items. On the other hand, the unitary system of government, where power is vested in one national government, reduces the capacity of citizens primarily to participate in local affairs. I think that the federal system is the most appropriate for people to engage in the process due to the fact that it can sometimes be challenging to comprehend which tier of the government is in charge of specific matters.

2. Division of Power

As I am aware, power sharing means the separation of power, where power is decentralized between various branches of government so that nobody can amass too much power. This is because the US Constitution establishes the principle of the division of powers in order to prevent any branch of government or level of government from dominating the other. This system is supposed to safeguard the rights of individuals and make sure that decisions reached are in the general interest of the people, but in reality it sometimes creates a stalemate. Moreover, competitive federalism, whereby the state and federal actors view for the most appropriate solutions, can either improve or worsen the decision-making process.

3. Federal Government’s Influence During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The federal government has either influenced or shaped the various activities or actions that state and local governments have undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic. From the perspective of New York, this fact can be established by certain examples, such as the policies of social distancing, mask-wearing, and vaccine distribution issued by the federal government. Correspondingly, it also arranged for a certain amount of emergency funding available through the programs of the CARES Act to help the states cope with the economic consequence of the pandemic scenario. However, due to the federal system of government, each state, including New York, was at liberty on matters concerning the lockdowns, closure of businesses, and any other measure that may have an effect on the spread of the virus. This was a more efficient approach that was useful for the New York state but also introduced variation in the work across the country. This proves how federalism provides room for variation but, at the same time, creates ambiguity and disparate measures during calamities.

1. The constitution was crafted by the rich elite, the proprietors, the politicians, the merchants, the traders, and others. The lower class, such as the small farmers or laborers, was left out of the process. The elite crafted the Constitution to protect the elitist interests of power and wealth.

2. Social stratification in the early days of the United States is differed from today’s, but there is a certain similarity. During the formation of the political system in early America, political power was firmly in the hands of the wealthy owners of the land. Today, there is an enhanced opportunity for broader segments of society to engage in decision-making through government, but this still remains in the hands of the rich through political economy.

3. The writers despised democracy because they believed that the lowest ordinary bracket in society should not be empowered. They feared the people might take actions that would jeopardize their capital and investments. This fear of the lower classes is evident in the design of the Constitution, which restricted direct democracy as a form of governance.

1.Factions seem pretty similar to societal classes. In the same manner as factionalism, interest within social classes is rather motivated as opposed to general interest.

2.Madison views social wealth as coming from diversified faculties (skills and abilities that people possess). People who possess some skills and talents gain property and wealth, while persons who lack these faculties continue to be poor. The framers of the two institutions expected and desired this division.

3.While I partially agree with this explanation, on the one hand, skills, and hard work contribute to earning boosts, but on the other hand, factors such as education and resource allocation result in inequality of wealth distribution, so the system turns out to be unjust for many.

4.The core mission of the U.S. government as outlined in Federalist No. 10, is to protect property rights. This deviation is apparent because the writers were keen to safeguard the interests of the wealthy property-owning class. But today, people see the government’s activity in terms of equity and social justice.

5.I am not surprised that Federalist No. 10 argued for a republican form of governance against pure democracy. The framers desired the concentrated power of the wealth and property owners, which they felt threatened by direct democracy.

In the M-C-M cycle of capital accumulation, a capitalist has money M, buys commodities, which include means of production and labor power to produce other commodities, and then sells them for money M’, which is more than the initial amount of money they started with. This cycle shows how Money became capitalists and constantly recycled profits back into production to extract even more surplus from labor. The materials from Parenti and Jalee attached below emphasize that this cycle is the heart of the capitalist wealth creation process.