Ruth Gilmore believes racial capitalism will end when whiteness no longer gives people an advantage. Whiteness dictates who gets opportunities and protection, so racism is part of the system, not just personal bias. 

       Gilmore also says the criminal justice and prison structure makes criminals by punishing poverty, over-policing some neighborhoods, and making it hard for ex-prisoners to get jobs or housing. This pushes people back into prison, confirming their criminal label, which I think makes re-offending likely. She sees liberation struggle as working together to change the systems that make certain groups expendable. Instead of just punishing and policing, we should invest in housing, education, safety, and opportunities so all neighborhoods can do well.

The Supreme Court said the women suing Wal-Mart couldn’t do it as one big, nationwide lawsuit. The main reason is that they didn’t have enough in common legally. To have a class-action suit, everyone in the group has to have basically the same legal problem. The Court said these women didn’t prove they all faced the same type of discrimination because of one company rule. See, Wal-Mart let each store manager decide about pay raises and who gets promoted. That means any discrimination probably wasn’t the same at every store. Because of this, the Court felt the women couldn’t prove they were all hurt in the same way, which you need for a class action. The Court stressed that without a clear company-wide policy causing the problem, their cases were too different to be lumped together. So, the case was thrown out as a class action. Now, each woman has to sue on her own instead of as part of a big group. This ruling makes it tougher for lots of workers to sue big companies for discrimination.

1. The court system is usually able to protect personal liberties better than the legislative branch because the judicial system’s goal is to interpret and apply the law in a fair manner, unaffected by political pressures or public opinion. Elected officials, on the other hand, like congressmen or mayors, are usually elected for the very reason that they keep most voters satisfied, thus securing their position. Judges should make their decisions according to the constitution and the existing laws. A perfect example of this is Brown v. Board of Education (1954), where the Supreme Court ruled that the practice of racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, even though it was held by many elected officials that desegregation was wrong because it was unpopular with the voters. This case shows that the courts can indeed protect the rights of individuals, even when the majority is against it.

2. The Supreme Court and federal courts indeed, in fact, do not represent democracy because the judges are not people’s choice, but that is, however, the way it is supposed to be. The authors of the Constitution wanted it this way to avoid political influence over the courts. The authors of the ruling party, referring to Federalist #10, stated that; the court system was one thing that mostly concerned them in terms of protecting the government against the adversities of majority rule or “mob rule,” where the majority could violate the rights of the minorities or individuals just because it was their opinion. By means of appointing judges, the system guarantees that the more educated and, often, upper or professional class people are going to be the interpreters of the law and the power of reason and justice, not that of popularity. So, even if the courts look anti-democratic, their function is to prevent the majority from exercising power over the rights of the individuals and hence to create a balance in democracy.

1. P. Williams writes in her essay that the war on terror is a new type of war. What’s new about it, how is it different from traditional wars?

  P. Williams points out that the war on terror isn’t your typical war. You don’t have two countries facing off on a battlefield. Instead, it’s this scattered fight against groups like terrorist organizations. They don’t wear uniforms or stick to one place—they mix in with civilians, which makes it tough to tell who’s actually fighting. And honestly, this kind of conflict can pop up anywhere on the globe. Because of all that, the war on terror brings a whole set of legal, ethical, and security issues that you just don’t see in old-school wars between armies. 

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?

      Roving wiretaps let law enforcement keep tabs on several devices a suspect uses, all under a single court order. That doesn’t sit right with the Fourth Amendment, which is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches. People who push back on this say it basically lets the government skip important checks. Instead of having to show real suspicion for every device, officials can just cast a wide net, and that chips away at our privacy rights.

3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?

 “Sneak and Peek” warrants let law enforcement slip into and search someone’s property without telling them right away. This kind of search stirs up Fourth Amendment worries since it keeps people in the dark and skips over some usual rules about being open with searches. The idea is to stop suspects from getting rid of evidence or running off, but honestly, it feels like it steps on people’s right to know when the police are going through their stuff.

1. Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test.”

      The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment and prevents the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another. It’s essentially meant to maintain the separation of church and state. The Lemon Test comes from the Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and is a three-part test used to determine whether a government action violates the Establishment Clause. The test asks: (1) whether the government action has a secular purpose, (2) whether its primary effect either advances or inhibits religion, and (3) whether it fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion. If an action fails any part of this test, it’s considered unconstitutional.

    2. Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading.

     Burning the US flag counts as symbolic speech, and the First Amendment protects it. Back in 1989, the Supreme Court decided in Texas v. Johnson that even if most people find flag burning offensive, it’s still a form of free expression. The government can’t just ban something because it upsets people or stirs up controversy.

3. What does it mean when someone says “I’m taking the Fifth”?

     When someone says, “I’m taking the Fifth,” they’re using their right under the Fifth Amendment to stay silent and not answer questions that might get them in trouble. Basically, they don’t have to say anything in court if it could end up being used against them. It’s a way for people to protect themselves from saying something that could lead to their own prosecution.

The power is distributed between the state governments and the national government in a federal state. The power is held strong within one central government in the unitary state. A weak central government with the Majority of power within states is found in a confederation. I recognize the distribution of power as a mechanism to ensure that no single grade of government becomes over powerful. The power establishes balance; however, at the same time, tension between the national government and state government occurs. The national government influences state and local decisions with funding, regulations, and national policies. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the national government offered poqual funds and issued guidelines, yet New York State decided independently about lockdowns as well as vaccinations. That blend of national assistance as well as state discretion demonstrates the operation of federalism in practice. It’s imperfect, yet it enables states to address different local needs differently yet with national goals as a guide.

The word “faction” sounds similar to interest groups or political parties—groups of people who band together to advance their mutual interests, usually to the detriment of someone else. James Madison writes, in Federalist #10, that economic wealth, or private property, results from the “diversity in the faculties of men.” With “faculties” Madison is referring to the natural ability or aptitude that people are born with. Some individuals are more adept at amassing property due to their natural ability or opportunities, whereas others are less adept, resulting in economic inequality.

Ialso don’t buy this account because it neglects the role of systematic obstacles that impact individuals’ chances, such as race, schooling, or class. The “first object” of the government, Madison said, is to secure property rights. That caught me off guard—it demonstrates the young American government’s preference over the weak over the weak. Madison didn’t trust unadulterated democracy because he worried that the majority (primarily the weak) might gang up against the rich minority. This illustrates the Constitution’s framing to secure elite interests.

The Constitution was authored by the rich elite—largely property owners, traders, and lawyers—who were the upper echelon of early America. The working class, slaves, women, and Indians were left out altogether. The fathers desired a government that took care to preserve property and order, so the power of the masses had to be checked. As one can see, voting rights were limited to property-owning males. This demonstrates that early America wasn’t actually democratic—it was set up to the advantage of those already holding power.

To compare that to now, I believe the class structure remains the same in most ways. Although we have additional rights and possibilities nowadays, power as well as political power still remains with a select section of society. The founders were scared of democracy because they felt the poor the majority of the people could vote to redistribute funds or oppose the power of the elite. That paranoia still resonates within the power dynamic within America to this day.