1. Connection between “Whiteness” and Racism: Ruth Gilmore’s statement implies that racial capitalism is deeply intertwined with “whiteness,” which historically has been constructed to confer privileges on white individuals systematically at the expense of people of color. The connection suggests that racism and capitalism together create structures that benefit those identified with “whiteness,” perpetuating inequalities. This relationship underscores that addressing racial disparities requires fundamental changes to the economic systems that privilege “whiteness.”
2. Creation of “Criminals” by the Prison System: According to Gilmore, the prison system perpetuates the category of “criminals” by reinforcing criminal identities through institutional practices and societal perceptions. She argues that prisons do not merely contain those who have committed crimes but actively participate in producing criminality through continuous labeling and exclusion from society. This systemic marking makes reintegration difficult, often leading to cycles of recidivism. I agree with her view, as it highlights the self-fulfilling nature of the penal system that often hinders genuine rehabilitation.
3. Understanding “Liberation Struggle”: In the last part of her video, Gilmore describes “liberation struggle” as an ongoing process aimed at radically transforming societal structures that sustain racial and economic injustices. This struggle involves dismantling the existing conditions of racial capitalism and reimagining a society where equitable distribution of resources and opportunities is foundational. It’s not merely about protesting what is wrong but also about actively creating alternatives that ensure justice and equity for all.

In the Wal-Mart case, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court decided not to move forward with a class action lawsuit that over one million female employees filed against Wal-Mart. The decision mainly focused on the requirement of “commonality,” a key element for class-action lawsuits under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This requirement means that the members of the lawsuit must have similar legal issues or situations that would warrant addressing their claims together. Justice Scalia, leading the majority opinion, argued that the plaintiffs failed to show that Wal-Mart had a company-wide policy of discrimination impacting all the class members. He noted that there wasn’t a consistent link or “glue” across the numerous employment decisions at various Wal-Mart stores. Without a clear, overarching policy of discrimination, the court felt that each claim would need individual examination to understand the specific details and context. The court reasoned that simply showing variations in pay and promotions across Wal-Mart didn’t sufficiently demonstrate common legal or factual questions. Since the plaintiffs couldn’t trace these issues to a uniform discriminatory policy affecting everyone, the differences in how individual stores operated meant that each complaint might need to be considered on its own. The majority stressed that for a class action to be approved, it must demonstrate that all plaintiffs suffered the same type of harm under the same corporate policy. Lacking this uniformity, the court suggested that individual lawsuits were more suitable for addressing these complaints. This ruling is significant as it points out the difficulties of proving widespread discrimination in large, decentralized companies where management practices can differ greatly. It set a precedent that for a class-action suit to be certified, there needs to be a clear and common thread in the discrimination claims across the entire class.

1. The Court System’s Role in Protecting Individuals

The federal court system often serves as a stronger protector of individual rights compared to the elected branches of government like Congress or the Presidency. This strength comes from the courts’ insulation from political pressures and public opinion, allowing judges and justices to make decisions based on law and constitutional principles, regardless of popularity. For instance, in the landmark case Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court recognized a woman’s right to choose an abortion as a protected right to privacy. This decision, made amidst strong and divided public opinion, highlighted the court’s ability to uphold fundamental rights without succumbing to electoral pressures, illustrating the judiciary’s crucial role in safeguarding individual liberties against majority influence.

2. The Supreme Court’s Place in a Democratic Society

The Supreme Court is often viewed as “anti-democratic” because its justices are appointed, not elected, and serve lifetime terms. This distance from electoral accountability might seem at odds with democratic principles, where leaders are directly chosen by the public. However, this design is deliberate and serves to protect the judiciary from the volatile nature of political trends and public opinion, as discussed in Federalist #10 by James Madison. He warned of the dangers of majority rule overriding minority rights. Thus, the judiciary’s role is to provide a stable, unbiased interpretation of the law, free from the pressures of popular demand. The appointment process—where the President nominates justices who are then confirmed by the Senate—ensures that those selected are both highly qualified and able to apply the law based on constitutional principles rather than political convenience. Though this may seem less democratic, it is a crucial component of the checks and balances system that maintains legal consistency and upholds the Constitution, protecting against any majority’s potential tyranny. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s structure is vital for upholding the rule of law and safeguarding individual rights, central to democratic governance.

1. What’s new about the war on terror, how is it different from traditional wars?

Patricia Williams points out that the war on terror is pretty different from the wars most of us learned about in history class. It’s not about countries fighting over borders or resources. Instead, it’s this huge, confusing battle against “terror,” which isn’t a country or a specific enemy you can easily point to. It’s like the enemy could be anywhere and is more about scary ideas than soldiers on a battlefield. This makes everything more complicated because how do you fight against something you can’t exactly see or define?

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” from the Patriot Act feel like they’re stretching the rules of the Fourth Amendment—that’s the one that protects us from random searches. Normally, if the government wants to tap your phone, they need to tell a judge exactly why and what they’re looking for. But with roving wiretaps, they don’t have to be so specific. They can tap any device you might use without proving each time that they have a good reason to do so. It feels like this could lead to a lot of unnecessary snooping because they don’t have to be as careful about respecting people’s privacy.

3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?

“Sneak and Peek” warrants let the police search places without telling the people right away that they’re doing it. This is another tricky area with the Fourth Amendment. Usually, if the police search your house, they have to show you the warrant and tell you what’s going on, which means you know your rights are being respected right then and there. But with these sneak and peek searches, they can come in, look around, and you might not know about it until later. It’s worrying because it seems like it could open the door for them to stretch the rules about what’s okay and what’s not without anyone watching.

1. Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”. The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment and states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This means that the government cannot establish a state religion nor prefer one religion over another, ensuring a separation of church and state. This clause is crucial in maintaining a secular government where no religion is given preference in public and legal matters. The Lemon Test, which came from the 1971 Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman, provides a framework for determining whether a law or government action that might affect religion is constitutional. The test has three criteria. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion.The statute must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.If a law fails any of these prongs, it is considered unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause. This test helps ensure that government actions remain neutral towards religion and do not excessively entangle the government with religious activities.
2. Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Yes, burning the US flag is protected by the First Amendment, which includes the right to free speech. This was confirmed in the landmark Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson (1989). In this case, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. He was initially convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration, but the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning constitutes a form of symbolic speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The Court’s decision emphasizes 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”? Saying “I’m taking the Fifth” refers to invoking the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. This amendment ensures that individuals cannot be compelled to testify against themselves in criminal cases, effectively allowing them to refuse to answer questions where the responses might incriminate them. This is a fundamental right in our legal system, meant to protect personal freedoms and prevent the government from using its power to force confessions or admissions of guilt. The famous Miranda rights include the right to remain silent, stemming from this provision, ensuring that suspects are aware of their rights when taken into police custody.

1. In federal systems, power is balanced between a central authority and regional governments, both of which engage with citizens and can legislate on specific issues. Confederations place more power at the regional level, with the central authority often needing agreement from the members for major decisions. In contrast, unitary systems concentrate authority centrally, and local administrations primarily execute national directives.

2. Division of power refers to how responsibilities are split in a federal system. For instance, the federal government in the U.S. handles national defense and currency issues, while states manage education and public safety. Some responsibilities, like taxation and infrastructure, are shared to ensure efficiency and unity.

3. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. federal government influenced states like New York by providing guidelines through agencies such as the CDC and financial support. This federal involvement guided New York’s approach to lockdowns, testing, and resource management, helping to coordinate responses to the pandemic’s challenges.

1. The idea of a “faction” reminds me of social classes or interest groups that we’ve talked about before. Like social classes, factions are groups of people who have similar goals or interests, and those interests can sometimes conflict with what’s best for everyone else. For example, we’ve discussed how the wealthy landowners and merchants had different goals compared to small farmers and the working class. So, Madison’s idea of factions is really about groups looking out for themselves. Sometimes at the expense of others.
2. Madison says that the source of wealth comes from the different abilities and talents people have, which he calls their “faculties.” So, basically, he’s saying that some people end up wealthy and owning property because they have different skills and opportunities that help them get there. He believes that the government’s job is to protect these differences, which means making sure that people can keep the property they’ve earned through their abilities.
3. I think on one hand people’s wealth is mostly determined by their hard work, skills, or talent. But on the other hand wealth and poverty are influenced by other factors like access to education, family background, or social inequalities. Keeping in mind both things, I disagree with Madison’s view of wealth and poverty as his explanation is too simplistic.
4. Madison says that the main job of the U.S. government is to protect people’s rights to own property based on their abilities. This means the government should focus on making sure everyone has the freedom to earn and keep their wealth. This might sound surprising because today we usually think of the government’s mission as promoting equality, protecting individual freedoms, or providing support to those in need. Madison’s focus on property rights shows how the makers of the Constitution were more interested in protecting the interests of those who already had wealth and power rather than ensuring fairness or equality for everyone.
5. It’s not that surprising when you think about it. Madison wasn’t a fan of pure democracy because he worried that if the majority of people who were often poor had too much power, they could pass laws that would hurt the wealthy minority. Basically, he wanted to avoid a situation where the poor could come together and take away the wealth or property of the rich. Instead, Madison thought a republic (where people elect representatives) would work better. In a republic, it’s harder for any one group to take control, and representatives would, ideally, think about what’s best for everyone, not just what’s popular at the moment. So, his preference for a republic over pure democracy was really about protecting the interests of the property-owning class and keeping the government stable and predictable​

1. The Constitution was written by the wealthy elite. Those who owned large amounts of land, ran businesses, or were involved in banking and trade. This group had a lot of influence and wanted to make sure the new government protected their wealth and property. For example, Charles Beard explains that many of the people who wrote the Constitution were creditors and landowners who wanted laws to secure their investments. On the other hand, the “disenfranchised” class included enslaved people, indentured servants, propertyless men, women, and small farmers. They had no say in the creation of the Constitution because they didn’t own property or meet the qualifications needed to vote. Michael Parenti highlights that less than 10% of the adult population could actually participate in the political process during that time​. These groups were deliberately left out because the framers saw them as a threat to their own power and economic stability.
2. The social class structure in early American society was quite different from what it is today. Back then, only wealthy, property-owning White men had political power. The majority such as slaves, women, and those without property couldn’t vote or participate in government at all​. This created a strict divide between those who had power and those who didn’t. Today, while everyone (in theory) has the right to vote and participate in politics, wealth and property still play a major role in influencing power. Wealthy individuals and corporations can impact political decisions through lobbying and campaign contributions. So while the class structure isn’t as legally rigid as it was back then, economic power still creates a gap between the wealthy and the rest of society.
3. The people who wrote the Constitution were worried that too much democracy would allow the poor majority to pass laws that could hurt their own economic interests. They saw democracy as a potential threat to their wealth and property. For example, James Madison talked about the danger of “leveling impulses” from the masses—that is, the idea that poorer people might try to pass laws that would take away wealth from the rich. Charles Beard also points out that the framers built many safeguards into the Constitution to limit the influence of ordinary people. Things like the Electoral College and having Senators chosen by state legislatures were designed to keep decision-making power out of the hands of the general public. This fear of democracy was really about protecting the economic interests of the wealthy elite and making sure the lower classes couldn’t disrupt their hold on power​.

1. When I read through “Concentration of Capital: Who Owns America” by M. Parenti (page 29) , personally it was quite shocking to learn that the top 1% of wealthy Americans own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90% of Americans combined. This stark difference highlights how wealth is extremely concentrated in the hands of very few, which is a big concern. This disproportionate share of wealth highlights the issue of economic inequality and the system through which wealth is concentrated and maintained in the hands of a few. 
2. Huge gaps in wealth can lead to a society where there’s a clear line between the wealthy and everyone else, creating feelings of disconnect and unfairness. When most of the wealth is with the very rich, everyday people have less to spend, which can hurt businesses and slow down the economy. Those with wealth often have more say in politics, which can lead to laws and policies that favor them, making it even harder to address inequality. You can see these issues in real life, for example, in cities where only the very wealthy can afford to buy homes while others struggle just to pay rent. Or in schools in wealthy areas that have more resources compared to underfunded schools in poorer neighborhoods, affecting the quality of education and future opportunities for those students. These examples can be seen clearly especially in New York City.