1. The connection between whiteness and racism is deeply rooted in the social and political construct that it means to be white. Whiteness automatically comes with privilege and advantages and resources and power meanwhile for people who are other skin colors these things are limited or sometimes just not available. Ruth Gilmore is saying this problem won’t stop being about race because as long as white people exist the system will always be set up for them to be at an advantage.
2. According to Gilmore, the prison system creates new criminals or even more by defunding public services offered to help people such as schools, healthcare, and proper housing and chooses to fund even more prison systems. This system causes harm by isolating those who fit the category of “criminals” denying their chances of better opportunities, making it hard for past criminals to re-enter society  and to integrate themselves in the community is almost impossible. I agree with her view on this because in a lot of unfair cases where people are framed simply because they fit the description of what society deems to be a criminal aka anyone that isn’t white.  A big example of this is the Central Park 5 case where 5 kids both black and latino were wrongfully convicted in a brutal rape and murder of white female jogger. They were coerced and pressured into confessing despite their several attempts at telling the police they had no involvement. They even served several years of prison time before they were finally released.
3. Professor Gilmore defines liberation struggle as place-based struggles that are happening within a community and can differ based on different communities. This also aims to get rid of racial capitalism and helps build a world full of more equality. A big way they can begin to achieve this would be abolition such as the tearing down of several prison institutes to instead build something that could help better the community or encourage the people to do better.
   
   
   
   
   

In the Wal-Mart v.Dukes case, the Supreme Court ended up deciding that the lawsuit filed by Wal-Mart’s female employees couldn’t proceed. They justified their final decision by ruling that the plaintiffs didn’t have enough commonality to be considered a single class in this class-action lawsuit. This means that since not every single female employee had the same exact issue with Wal-Mart it was not possible to come up with a singular solution ending in a single trial to fix all the issues they had but would instead require several trials for either the pay raise or the harassment which ruled them out as a class-action lawsuit. For example, in “Sex Class Action” it states “Scalia argued that to claim “commonality” a class must not only share a common problem, but also a common solution to that problem—one that would compensate all members equally in a single stroke. Because the 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees were not all denied the same promotion, the same pay raise, or insulted, belittled, or obstructed by the same manager in the same store, their cases could not legitimately be litigated all at once.” This quote demonstrates that the Supreme Court didn’t allow the plaintiffs to proceed with their case due to being unable to resolve the issue with one single solution.

1. The court system is better suited to protect an individual rather than the elected branches of government such as Congress, the President, and the mayor of NYC, and the NYC assembly because they have no political pressure unlike the elected branches of government they don’t have to consider public opinion as much and simply abide by the laws. For example, in “13.3 The Federal Court System” it states “Democratic-appointed judges sometimes side with conservatives, just as Republican-appointed judges sometimes side with liberals.” This quote proves that despite a judge’s political stance they don’t let it impact their choice in condemning a defendant. Another way the court system is better suited to protect an individual is that it protects all rights even of minority groups meanwhile the elected branches often prioritize the majority. For example, the case of Ernesto Miranda who was arrested for kidnapping and rape but had his original conviction overturned due to law enforcement’s violating his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights since he wasn’t read his rights or had access to an attorney. 
   
   
   2. I agree with the statement about the Supreme Court being an anti-democratic part of our government because they aren’t  directly chosen by voters but rather appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The reason for this way of choosing judges in federal courts could be to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. Back in Federalist #10 James Madison among other framers were concerned about having a pure democracy and it leading to the majority oppressing the minority groups through government or rule. Our way of choosing judges in federal court ensures this won’t happen because this prevents the majority from easily controlling or influencing the judiciary. Most importantly it completely prevents political opinion from influencing a judges decision. For example, like it states in  “ The Federal Court System” it states “One of the reasons the framers of the U.S. Constitution included the provision that federal judges would be appointed for life was to provide the judicial branch with enough independence such that it could not easily be influenced by the political winds of the time.” This shows that no matter who our President is at the time whether they’re Republican or Democratic Party.
   

1. I understand the Establishment Clause as a limitation in the First Amendment that prevents the government from creating a religion everyone has to practice or just favoring one specific religion over any other . For example , in the reading “4.2 Securing Basic Freedoms” it states  “The first of these two freedoms is known as the establishment clause. Congress is prohibited from creating or promoting a state-sponsored religion (this now includes the states too)”. This quote from the reading shows that the overall use of the Establishment Clause was to prevent the people from being forced into a specific religion by the government. The Lemon Test was a legal standard that was used to determine if a government action violated the Establishment Clause and promoted a religious practice over another. This is also supported in the text when it states “In a 1971 case known as Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court established the Lemon test for deciding whether a law or other government action that might promote a particular religious practice should be allowed to stand”. This overall describes exactly what the Lemon Test was used for and its relation to the Establishment Clause.

2. Burning the US flag is protected by the First Amendment because it is a form of symbolic speech. The court case that decided this is known as Texas v. Johnson where the Supreme Court ruled the burning of the flag as a form of political protest. The Court’s decision was made based on the principle that the government can’t forbid someone’s expression towards something simply because everyone else finds it offensive or doesn’t exactly agree with it. For example, in the reading “4.2 Securing Basic Freedoms” it states “the Constitution protects most forms of offensive and unpopular expression, particularly political speech; however, incitement of a criminal act, “fighting words,” and genuine threats are not protected .” This shows that the government can’t forbid any form of expression unless it is violent or incriminating.

3. When someone says they’re taking the Fifth this means that they won’t be speaking on the situation to avoid accidentally incriminating themselves. The Fifth Amendment is mostly famous for the right to remain silent to protect against self-incrimination. For example, in the reading “4.3 The Rights of Suspects” it states “ the most famous provision of the Fifth Amendment is its protection against self-incrimination, or the right to remain silent. This provision is so well known that we have a phrase for it: ‘taking the Fifth’”. This shows that when someone says they’re taking the fifth it simply means they will be practicing their right to remain silent.

1. The war on terror is a new type of war that is different from traditional wars because instead of being a war against a specific person or land it’s simply a fight against anybody who makes us feel afraid. This led to the line between war and peace being blurred and allowed for the government to make policies that violated human rights simply because they were afraid of people who were different from them (both racially, religiously). This is supported in P. Williams’ essay “This dangerous patriot’s game” where it states “This brings me to the second aspect of our Constitutional crisis – that is, the encroachment of our historical freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.” This shows how this type of war led to the government breaking their own rules for people they felt were unsafe simply because they didn’t fit their descriptions of Americans.
2. The “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriotic Act violates the Bill of Rights because it is violating the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people from any unreasonable searches by forbidding searches without a warrant signed by a judge or probable cause. Roving wiretaps violate this because it is listening in on private conversations without consent of everyone involved. For example, in “The Patriot Act: Key Controversies” by Larry Abramson and Maria Godoy it states “ Critics say the language of the act could lead to privacy violations of anyone who comes into casual contact with a suspect.” This quote shows that the wiretapping wouldn’t just be capturing what the suspect is saying but could be invading anybody who comes into contact with the suspect’s privacy.
3. The “Sneak and Peak” Warrants under the Patriot Act violates the Bill of Rights because it is also violating the Fourth Amendment. The “Sneak and Peak” Warrant allowed a person’s house to be searched without their acknowledgment. For example, in “The Patriot Act: Key Controversies” by Larry Abramson and Maria Godoy it states “This section allows for “delayed notice” of search warrants, which means the FBI can search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of the investigation”. This shows how the Fourth Amendment is being violated because how would they be able to prove they had a warrant or any probable cause to do the search if there was nobody there as a witness other than themselves.

1. The primary difference in the role of citizens in government, among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems is the amount of involvement they have in each system. For example, in federal systems citizens are allowed to participate in elections which allows them to have an influence, in confederation systems citizens have a minimal amount of involvement where the authority is concentrated in the states and not the people, in unitary systems the ability citizens have to influence is focused through a single national authority which is the central government.
2. I understand the division of power as the concept of separating government authority into branches to allow them to have equal power so none become too powerful
3. The federal government shapes the actions of the state and local governments with their funding, through the mandates and national policies they set. For example, when the pandemic hit in 2020 people were instructed to stay in their homes and quarantine unless they had a necessity to go out this led to school shutting down and changing to online only and businesses as well. Finally, when the vaccine came out people were finally allowed to go out only if they had their vaccine.

1. The concept faction reminds me of is ideology. In the “Federalists Papers” faction is described as “ By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. “ This shows that a faction is a group of people who are united by a common interest. Going back to when we were learning about ideology it was described as values or beliefs that a person or group of people may have and it was typically used to group people by political views.
2. According to Federalist #10 the source of wealth is private properties. Power explains how some people get to possess wealth and own properties and other groups don’t. Higher classes have more money equaling more power so they get more of a say in political laws and they are able to own more property because of the advantages they have due to their social class.
3. I don’t agree with the ideas presented in the reading I believe all social classes should have equal opportunity to own property and to equal access in having a say in who gets power.
4. The core mission of the US government is to protect private property and power. I would say times have changed drastically as now the core mission of the US government is to protect our equal rights to freedom. Society has evolved drastically eve though sometimes in certain aspects the law still does benefit the rich class, it also sometimes ensures the lower classes have some sort of recognition and benefits.

1. Based on the arguments presented in both Readings 6.1 and 6.2 the social class that wrote the constitution the wealthier or higher social class wrote the Constitution and the lower class was excluded and not allowed to participate in the process. For example, in “ Democracy for the Few” by Michael Parenti it states “In twelve of the thirteen states (Pennsylvania excepted), only property-owning White males could vote, probably not more than 10 percent of the total adult population. Excluded were all Native Americans (“Indians”), per-sons of African descent, women, indentured servants, and White males lacking sufficient property. Property qualifications for holding office were so steep as to exclude even most of the White males who could vote.” This quote from the reading shows me that the only people who were allowed to vote were white males who owned properties while other white males who didn’t weren’t allowed as well as lower classes and people of color. The second reading also supports this claim when it states “the slaves, the indented servants, the mass of men who could not qualify for voting under the property tests imposed by the state constitutions and laws, and women, disenfranchised and subjected to the discriminations of the common law. These groups were, therefore, not represented in the Convention which drafted the Constitution, except under the theory that representation has no relation to voting.” This supports my claim that the social class excluded from the constitution was the lower class and people of color.
2. If we sit and compare the social class structure from the early United States society to the one we live in now I would say there are several big differences like not having to own property to be able to vote or not having to be a certain race. However, many things make it just like early United States society with certain groups having more power or say over others and the wealthier class having more rights or privileges/ representation over the lower class minority groups.
3. The framers were afraid of Democracy because they thought the lower classes would vote for laws to hurt the wealthy: tax them more, get rid of a lot of the benefits they have, or simply threaten property rights. The framers wanted to protect the rich since they saw them as more trustworthy for having money and saw the lower classes as unreliable and always in debt.