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? Ruth Gilmore’s provocative statement that capitalism will stop being “racial capitalism” when all the white people disappear speaks to the deep entanglement of race and capitalism in shaping social, economic, and political systems. The connection between “whiteness” and racism, in this context, can be understood as both a social construct and a key mechanism that structures inequalities within capitalist systems. Whiteness, in Gilmore’s analysis, is not just a skin color but a social and political identity that confers privileges, benefits, and power within a capitalist society. In many Western societies, “whiteness” has historically been associated with access to wealth, land, political rights, and social status. It became an essential part of the construction of race as a hierarchical system where people who were categorized as “white” were systematically advantaged, while others, particularly Black and Indigenous peoples, were subordinated.

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?

According to professor Gilmore in my estimation she is overstating the fact that in order for prisons to work there needs to be criminals created. How she explains this is done is by creating more laws that can increase the likely hood of being a criminal. Add more behavior that can be deemed devious in the eyes of society so there can be an influx of incarcerations. She also addressed the fact that criminalization has to be deeper meaning the sentences have to be longer. Finally when they come back into the world, or “reentry” as they like to call it they then have to be rehabilitated and have to go back to their community and be apart of it and contribute to that community. This is how I understood professor Gilmore and in my view she is absolutely correct. Judges, dense attorneys, prosecutors down to the correctional officers all have well paying jobs because of these criminals and i’m sure they wouldn’t want to less criminals because that could mean less labor and money for them.

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

the way I understand it is life living together and as she says radical dependency. People being informed about their history, political and economy issues. Pretty much like a safe haven or forum to really be conscious and gather life long information and in engage in egoless healthy debates where people can come as they are and be accepted in that community is how i understood professor Gilmore’s liberation struggle.

The court system is more effective in the protection of individual liberties as compared to the other branches of government since it is non-partisan and not influenced by political pressure. This is because judges do not have to face elections again, thus they are not influenced by political factors when passing their verdicts. For instance, in the case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court was able to overturn the segregation of schools which was a political decision that was made by the elected officials, thus protecting the rights of the African Americans. Courts preserve the rights of the minorities and check the excesses of the other arms of government to observe the constitutionality of their actions and omissions the same way political leaders may not want them to be.

2. 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.)

Some have claimed that the Supreme Court is ‘undemocratic’ because it has judges, not presidents, as its decision-makers. However, such a structure is put in place to safeguard the rights of individuals and ensure that there is continuity in legalities than to bend to the wishes of the majority. In Federalist rationing number ten Madison explained how boisterous majorities or what he termed factions could enact legislation that would oppress the minority. With this in mind, the framers aimed at creating an independent judiciary that would be a balance to political might and a guardian of the constitution no matter how much the public opinion was against it. The purpose of appointing rather than electing the judges is to ensure that the decisions to be made are based on the law and the constitution and not on political gains or the current trends. This in turns helps in preventing the judiciary from being an arm of the majority or of the political opponents, and frees it to concentrate on the business of interpreting and applying the constitution and the laws and protecting the rights of individuals including members of minority communities. Although this system reduces the level of direct democratic influence, it is in harmony with the objectives of the framers of the constitution to create a system of balanced government where the judicial arm has the role of being the stabilizer different from the political arms. It also depicts the fact that elites who are those in possession of wealth and power, have played a critical role in the formation of the political and legal systems. In this sense, the Court can be viewed as an organization that responds to the needs of this part of society, which, from time to time, may be in contrast with what the rest of the population wants. But the judiciary’s independence is supposed to prevent the application of justice according to the trends of political developments so as to balance the other arms of government from possible abuses of power.

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 Wal-Mart v. Dukes (2011), the U. S Suprem Court in its wisdom struck out the class action lawsuit filed by women against Wal-Mart for discrimination at the workplace. The Court made this decision based on the legal criterion of commonality which means that the plaintiffs must have legal or factual arguments to present. The plaintiffs argued that Wal-Mart was prejudiced but the court found out that the discrimination was not rampant in all the stores and this made the case not to be a class action lawsuit. The Court found out that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the legal requirement of commonality as the discrimination was not made pursuant to a policy but at the discretion of the managers. Therefore, the class action lawsuit was barred. By this decision, the court placed much emphasis on the issue of commonality in class action cases thus making it difficult for large number of people with different characteristics to file for a case against a company for alleged violation of their legal 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?One of the most notable differences is the nature of the adversary. In traditional wars, conflicts are usually fought between nation-states or organized military forces with clear hierarchies and boundaries. In contrast, the war on terror often involves non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda or ISIS. These groups operate transnationally and lack formal recognition as legitimate armies, making them harder to identify and target.
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 Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Roving wiretaps allow law enforcement to surveil multiple communication devices used by a suspect without needing a separate warrant for each device. This can be seen as a violation of the Fourth Amendment
3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?”Sneak and Peek” warrants, also known as delayed notification search warrants, allow law enforcement to conduct searches without immediately notifying the subject of the search. This provision, part of the USA PATRIOT Act, raises several concerns regarding potential violations of the Bill of Rights, particularly the Fourth Amendment and, to some extent, the First Amendment.

1. Describe the primary differences in the role of citizens in government, among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems. Citizens often have dual citizenship, with rights and responsibilities at both the national and regional levels. They participate in elections for both federal and local representatives, influencing policy at multiple levels. The division of power allows for diverse regional interests to be represented. In confederation citizens typically engage primarily with their local or state governments. The central authority has limited power, which means citizens might feel less connected to it. Their involvement is more focused on state-level governance, and the effectiveness of citizen participation can vary widely depending on how much power the confederation has and how it functions. Citizens primarily interact with the national government, as local governments have limited autonomy. Their participation is generally channeled through national elections and policies. While local officials may exist, they largely implement central policies, meaning citizens may have less influence on local governance.

2 Briefly explain how you understand the system of division of power. The system of division of power refers to the distribution of authority and responsibilities among different levels of government to prevent any single entity from becoming too powerful. This can take several forms, primarily seen in federal systems. The division of power aims to enhance democratic governance by promoting participation, protecting individual rights, and maintaining a system of checks and balances to prevent tyranny. By distributing authority, it encourages collaboration and responsiveness to citizens’ needs at various levels.

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. The federal government provided substantial funding through relief packages like the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and the American Rescue Plan. This financial support helped New York state and local governments cover pandemic-related expenses, such as healthcare costs, unemployment benefits, and public health initiatives. The influx of federal funds allowed state and local governments to maintain services and support their populations during the crisis. Overall, the federal government played a critical role in shaping the responses of New York state and local governments during the COVID-19 pandemic through funding, guidance, and regulatory frameworks. This collaborative approach highlighted the interconnectedness of federal and state governance, particularly in times of crisis.

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 framers of the Constitution were predominantly wealthy men, including figures like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington. Or otherwise known as the founding fathers. These individuals had a vested interest in creating a government that would safeguard their economic interests and property rights. For instance, Hamilton’s Federalist Papers explicitly argue for a strong central government to stabilize the economy and protect commercial interests, reflecting the priorities of the elite. The process of drafting and ratifying the Constitution largely excluded those without property, including the poor, landless individuals, and women. The framers believed that only those who had a stake in the economic system i.e. property owners—should have a voice in government.

2. Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain. Both periods feature significant wealth inequality. In early America, a small elite owned most of the land and resources, while the majority struggled with poverty. Today, wealth is also concentrated among a small percentage of the population, with the top 1% holding a significant portion of the nation’s wealth. Early society was predominantly white and male, reflecting the exclusion of various racial and ethnic groups. Today’s society is more diverse, with ongoing struggles for representation and equality among different racial, ethnic, and gender groups.

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 framers of the Constitution were concerned about democracy primarily because they feared that unchecked popular rule could lead to mob rule and instability, which they believed would threaten their social and economic interests. the framers  fear of democracy stemmed from their desire to protect their social class interests and maintain stability in a fledgling nation. They believed that a government should be run by educated elites who could make rational decisions, rather than by the masses, who they feared might act on impulse and disrupt the social order. This perspective shaped the structure of the constitution and the political landscape that followed.

1. What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of? The concept of “faction” reminds me of social class divisions and the influence of various interest groups within society. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison discusses factions as groups of people who gather to pursue their common interests, which can often be at odds with the rights of others or the common good.

• 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. Madison views private property as essential for individual prosperity and freedom. He believes that the protection of property rights is vital for encouraging investment, innovation, and economic growth. Madison’s analysis in Federalist No. 10 reveals a recognition of the complexities of wealth and property ownership in society. The unequal distribution of property leads to economic inequality, and the framers of the Constitution sought to create a system that would protect the interests of property owners while managing the potential threats posed by factions driven by different economic interests.

• Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty? Yes, unfortunately the powers that have always controlled and manipulated laws and policies so they’re families and families like them could be sole beneficiaries and reap the benefits. Keeping the masses just docile enough so we do not revolt against them risking their precious property and assets while minorities starve and struggle to find decent paying jobs.

• 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 U.S. government, as articulated by thinkers like James Madison, is to protect the rights of property and individual liberties. This idea is rooted in the belief that the government should safeguard the rights of citizens, particularly the rights to private property, which were seen as essential for personal freedom and economic stability. Seems the same just increased instability with more ethnic groups as our country has become more diverse.

• 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… Madison’s preference for a republican form of government reflects his concerns about the potential dangers of direct democracy, particularly regarding the influence of poorer classes on political decisions. He believed that a representative system would provide more stability and protect the interests of property owners, ultimately leading to a more effective and orderly governance. This perspective highlights the class-based anxieties that shaped the foundational principles of the U.S. government.