1. I do think racism is linked to whiteness through the institutionalization of “whiteness” as a structure of domination and control. As Ruth Wilson Gilmore says, capitalism is racial because it has always been linked to practices that create and maintain racial hierarchies. She argues that capitalism will no longer be racial capitalism: it will be so through much more than the eradication of white people from life; rather, it happens when the structures of exclusion and privilege that “white” represents are dismantled. In this context, “white” represents a construct of unchecked power and privilege that marginalizes some for the benefit of others. It creates and maintains hierarchies that dehumanize and exploit different groups.

2. I agree with her view. The prison system has expanded the category of “criminal” through systemic mechanisms that include longer sentences, broader definitions of crime, and obstacles to reintegration into society post-incarceration. It has criminalized poverty, homelessness, and systemic inequality, and this creates an endless stream of people labeled as “criminals.” Gilmore critiques this system as a product of racial capitalism, designed to concentrate surpluses and control marginalized populations rather than address underlying social issues.

3. Gilmore describes “liberation struggle” as a collective, place-based process where communities actively resist oppression by addressing local needs. This struggle is grounded in solidarity, mutual dependence, and a commitment to rethink and reconstruct systems that oppress and marginalize. For example, she mentions the work of self-built communities in Lisbon, where people resisted displacement by organizing and educating themselves about colonialism, racism, and broader systems of inequality. It is about creating spaces for collective consciousness and action that aim for systemic transformation.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs, deciding that the class-action lawsuit filed by Betty Dukes and other women did not meet the requirements necessary to proceed as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court determined that the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief and back pay was procedurally flawed. It held that these types of relief could not be pursued together under the specific “b(2)” classification they used. The Court also found that the class lacked the “commonality” required for certification.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, argued that for a class to meet the commonality requirement, its members must share common questions of law or fact and a common solution that could resolve the claims of all class members in a single stroke. He contended that because Wal-Mart’s alleged discriminatory practices stemmed from decentralized managerial discretion rather than a unified corporate policy, the women’s experiences varied too widely. Without a unifying “glue” to connect the claims—such as a central discriminatory policy—there was no single answer to the crucial question, “Why was I disfavored?” In the Court’s view, this lack of a consistent thread rendered the class-action approach inappropriate.

The dissent, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, criticized the majority’s interpretation of commonality, arguing that Wal-Mart’s culture of discretionary practices had a demonstrable pattern of gender bias across the company. She emphasized that even decentralized practices can lead to systemic discrimination and that such patterns should suffice to establish commonality under Rule 23. However, the majority’s narrow definition of commonality prevailed.

The court system is better situated to protect the individual than the elected branches of government because it is independent and based on the rule of law. Courts do not have to worry about public opinion or political pressure, whereas elected officials must cater to the will of the voters. This independence makes the judiciary unbiased to any other branch of the government and the majority opinion. It allows the judiciary to stand up for the rights and liberties of people, even if those rights are unpopular or opposed by the majority. For example, the Supreme Court held in Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional and protected the rights of African American students. In this decision, the judiciary protected marginalized groups against discriminatory policies enacted or tolerated by elected officials. The mandate of the courts is to interpret and apply constitutional principles and check excesses in the executive and legislative branches of government.

I do not agree that the Supreme Court and federal court system are an anti-democratic part of our government. The judges are not elected by the people but appointed to be independent and impartial. It was designed that way by the framers, and as argued in Federalist #10, it was to guard against the dangers of majority rule and factionalism. The judiciary focuses on judicial interpretation through constitutional principles, not popular opinions or pressures. The appointment process ensures a selection of qualified judges to decide cases through their legal experience in applying the rule of law and not their ability to win the popular vote.

This system is the backbone of the framer’s intention to balance the influence between classes and prevent any single class’s domination over government. The judiciary was designed to guard individual rights, especially those of minorities, against the tyranny of the majority. Apart from elected representatives, who tend to succumb to the will of their constituents, judges interpret the laws with an objective approach.

Patricia Williams argues that the war on terror represents a new type of war different from traditional wars. The war on terror does not constitute a war against an identifiable nation or group but targets an abstract concept known as terrorism. This concept is not linked to specific borders, armies, or resources. It is a war against fear, emotion, and uncertainty, where the combatants may be anyone or anything perceived as a threat. The new war is distinguished by legal and constitutional changes through policies such as Indefinite detention, secret tribunals, and erosion of civil liberties in the name of national security. These measures mark a new departure from the traditional wartime practices in which due process and accountability were cornerstones. The new war is pursued on the physical battlefields and in the minds of the citizens, where fear may lead to the breakdown of trust and tolerance for authoritarian measures.

The “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. This amendment requires specificity in warrants, mandating that they describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Roving wiretaps allows a single court order to authorize surveillance across multiple communication devices without explicitly identifying the devices beforehand. This increases the risk of accidental surveillance of innocent individuals who may come into casual contact with the suspect.

“Sneak and Peek” also seems to violate the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of timely notification in searches and seizures. Under this provision, law enforcement can delay notifying the target of a search. The lack of immediate notification could leave individuals unaware of potential violations of their privacy. Such invasive methods should be tailored to situations where public safety or the investigation is at substantial risk.

The Federal system power is divided between national and regional governments, each operating independently in some areas while Citizens engage with multiple layers of government (federal, state, and local), often with distinct responsibilities. For instance, U.S. citizens vote for federal positions like the president and also for state governors and local officials, reflecting their involvement across levels of governance. Confederation Systems you see have Power that resides predominantly with the member states or provinces. The central authority is weak and mainly serves as a coordinator. Citizens primarily engage with their regional governments, as seen in early U.S. history under the Articles of Confederation. Unitary Systems: The central government holds most authority and delegates limited power to local governments. Citizen engagement is mostly with the national government, directly shaping local governance. while the division of powers refers to how authority is distributed among levels of government. In federal systems, sovereignty is constitutionally shared between central and regional governments, ensuring autonomy in specific domains. In confederations, member states retain most sovereignty. you see the federal government significantly shaped state and local actions through policies, funding, and mandates.

1.The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or showing favoritism towards any specific religion. To determine whether a government action violates this clause, the courts employ the Lemon Test derived from the case Lemon v. Kurtzman. This test consists of three criteria such as, The action must have a secular purpose, The action’s primary effect cannot advance or inhibit religion, and The action must not lead to excessive entanglement between government and religion. If any of these criteria are not met, the action is likely to be deemed a violation of the Establishment Clause.

2. Is burning the U.S. flag protected?
Now Burning the U.S. flag is protected by the First Amendment as symbolic speech, ruling in Texas v. Johnson (1989). The government cannot ban it because it is controversial, as protecting free speech includes allowing actions that some may find offensive.
3. When someone says, “I’m taking the Fifth,” they are using their right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment to avoid saying something that could incriminate them. This right protects individuals from being compelled to say things that could get them in trouble, particularly in legal proceedings. It serves as a safeguard against self-incrimination, or providing evidence against oneself.

This brings to mind the idea of interest groups or special interests, which are people with common interests, goals, or agendas. These factions are groups that come together to advance their interests, sometimes disregarding the greater good, similar to what we see with modern interest groups or political factions today. In Federalist #10, James Madison points to the diversity of individuals’ abilities, talents, and capacities as the basis for creating private property and wealth. Madison believes that differences in natural abilities impact people’s ability to acquire wealth, leading to some owning property while others do not. However, this overlooks structural inequalities like access to education and resources that also influence wealth accumulation. This differs from modern ideas of government, which often prioritize equality and social welfare. Madison’s focus on protecting property rights reflects the framers’ concern for safeguarding the economic interests of the wealthy, which may be surprising compared to modern views on the government’s role.

The word “disenfranchised” means being deprived of rights, including the right to vote or fully participate in the political process. This term can also refer to those who are excluded from power and benefits within a society, such as poor or landless individuals, women (before suffrage), African Americans and other racial minorities (especially before the Civil Rights Movement), immigrants, and working-class individuals who did not meet property or tax qualifications. Many disenfranchised people were unable to vote or participate in politics because of property ownership requirements. Certain groups, like women and racial minorities, were excluded due to societal biases and legal barriers. In this context, the disenfranchised could also refer to the working or laboring classes.

The video clearly discusses two main ideas, the means of production and labor. The only means of production encompasses the physical and non-human resources needed to create goods and services, such as factories, machinery, tools, raw materials, and necessary infrastructure. In the textile industry, sewing machines, factory buildings, and fabric are examples of the means of production. which is quite great. labor refers to the human effort, both physical and mental, put into the production process. It involves people’s work to turn raw materials into finished products or services. For example, in the textile industry, factory workers operating sewing machines and designers creating clothing patterns are providing the labor. so Labor is the work done, while labor power is the ability or potential to do work. Workers sell their labor power to employers in exchange for wages, with the key difference being the capacity to work (labor power) versus the actual work done (labor). Surplus value is the extra value created by workers beyond their wages. It shows how workers’ labor generates profit for capitalists in a capitalist economy. Understanding surplus value helps us see the economic exploitation in these systems.