1. Collective action problems arise whenever individuals or groups are in a situation where it would be better for all if everybody involved worked together, yet there is a disincentive to participate. People may not act because they believe their contribution will have little impact or the personal cost, in terms of time or money for example, outweighs the perceived benefit. The result is often free riding, whereby some individuals enjoy the benefits of the collective effort without contributing. These problems are common when the benefits of action accrue to everyone, making it easier to avoid participation in large groups where individual contributions seem less important. Other factors that make collective action hard include lack of incentives, coordination issues, and diverse interests. In regard to issues like climate change, people may feel that their action cannot make a difference and hence fail to act. Similarly, in the case of union membership, laborers may receive higher wages and better conditions without actually joining the union or paying dues. The overcoming of such problems often necessitates the provision of incentives, such as material or solidarity benefits, organization of smaller, more cohesive groups, or mandating participation, as seen in professional associations.
2. The free rider problem is when people benefit from some service or resource without paying for, or putting effort into, the cost of providing that service. This occurs because people recognize their contribution is unlikely to make a difference, and thus decide not to participate or contribute, but instead, depend on others to take action. For instance, many NPR listeners appreciate the programs but do not contribute when NPR holds its fundraising campaigns.Because the fundraising campaign will succeed whether any one person contributes or not, many listeners are free riders who benefit from the service without paying for it. 
3. Several strategies can be utilized to overcome collective action problems by encouraging participation and reducing the problem of free riding. One way is to offer inducements, which may come in any of several forms: material inducements, such as discounts or services provided by organizations like AARP; solidary inducements, or the social rewards of associating with people through an organization like the NAACP; and purposive inducements, or the satisfaction connected with working for a cause, such as the defense of civil liberties through the ACLU. Smaller, well-organized groups are more apt to successfully overcome the logic of collective action problems because consensus is easier to achieve, participation is easier to monitor, and free riders are more easily identified. Groups that have access to external support or financial resources can use these assets to mobilize members, offer rewards, or hire professionals like lobbyists. In some instances, coercion and mandates, such as requiring membership in professional associations or unions, result in a decrease in free riding due to the mandatory involvement. Lastly, disturbance theory postulates that external events or crises can galvanize collective action, with groups like environmental organizations beginning their mobilization after the publication of Silent Spring in 1962. Through applying these strategies, groups can work in an effective manner to overcome problems stemming from collective action and increase participation.
4. According to disturbance theory, the origin and mobilization of groups arise due to dramatic events or disturbances within a political, social, or economic environment. Where an event happens-a crisis or significant social issue-the affected or concerned parties begin to take action through either the creation of new interest groups or the mobilization of current ones. For example, in 1962, the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, exposing toxic pesticides such as DDT, made a ripple. It brought environmental issues to the nation’s attention and spurred new groups, such as Greenpeace and American Rivers, into action. Increased activism fueled policy changes, such as a ban on DDT.

In the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011) case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a class- action lawsuit filed by female employees claiming gender discrimination at Wal-Mart could not proceed. The key reason for the Court’s decision was the failure to meet the “commonality” requirement for class actions. This legal term means that for a class to be certified, the plaintiffs must show that they share common legal or factual questions that can be resolved in a single trial. The Court concluded that plaintiffs failed to prove commonality because their claims were too diverse: the employees worked for different managers, in different regions, with different experiences. Wal-Mart’s management system was so decentralized that there was no company wide policy or practice affecting all employees similarly. Thus, the case could not be maintained as a class action.

1. It is better suited to protect individual rights, rather than the elected branches, because it is truly independent, truly impartial, and insulated from popular politics. Whereas Elected officials must always be concerned with voters and political interests, judges can focus on what the Constitution and the law require. Courts offer an added protection to the rights of minorities, too, against the popular will. A sterling example of this is the case of Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, whereby the U.S. Supreme Court nullified racial segregation in public schools against strong political resistance from the states and localities. This case vividly demonstrates how courts can protect individuals from government actions that violate constitutional rights when elected officials might be unwilling or unable to take action due to political pressures.
2. In fact, a procedure of appointment, rather than election, was devised for federal judges as a check against the possible undue influences of factionalism and special interest groups on the courts. Appointed judges are expected to be knowledgeable of the law, experienced in its practice, and to view their appointments as long term opportunities to shape the meaning of laws and constitutional principles, independent of the whims of an electorate that may change its mind from one election to another. It is also fair to conclude that although the Supreme Court should not necessarily be held accountable through elections to the public, it is nonetheless in fact a part of democracy. The Insulation of the judiciary from political pressures is, through the intellectually sound creation of the framers via the Constitution, one sure fire way of protecting individual rights and upholding the rule of law, both constituent components of democracy. The courts achieve a balance in powers so that no one group-a majority or powerful fractions-infringes on constitutional rights, while meting out justice in a fair and equitable manner.

1. P. Williams argues that the war on terror is a qualitatively new kind of conflict,
   keeping in mind some of the most essential features distinguishing it from the
   wars of the past. The character of the enemy is the first decisive aspect: instead of
   another nation-state with a regular military, this war faces non-state actors and terrorist groups operating globally and often merges with civilian populations. This makes it hard to find targets and conduct operations without civilian casualties. Furthermore, the war on terror makes asymmetric warfare the order of the day, whereby the conventional military troops are supposed to face unorthodox tactics like guerrilla warfare, cyber attacks, and terrorism. The goals, too, are different from a mere defeat of the enemy army; instead, it looks to dislodge ideologies and networks. Furthermore, military action is veiled into law enforcement in the war on terror, since it is very often carried out in terms of counterterrorism measures that include intelligence operations, surveillance, and cooperation with other nations, which complicates the traditional framework of warfare even more. These facts make the landscape of conflict increasingly complex and prolonged.
2. One provision of the Patriot Act includes “roving wiretaps,” a very questionable regard to violating a person’s Bill of Rights, more precisely the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Roving wiretaps give law enforcement authorization to target multiple communication devices used by a suspect without having to obtain a separate warrant for each of those devices. Critics say such a vast approach undermines the requirements for particularized warrants and could result in surveillance targeting people who may not be involved in any criminal enterprise, a violation of privacy rights. Beyond that, there is an added self-incrimination problem with the Fifth Amendment: wiretaps can capture incriminating conversations and result in prosecutions based upon evidence acquired by a warrant not determined with finality. In summary, the pervasive nature of roving wiretaps would lead to invasive surveillance in violation of the basic safeguards for the protection of individual rights articulated in the Bill of Rights.
3. The “sneak and peek” warrants that the Patriot Act enabled can make searches by police allowable without notifying their suspect of that search right away; this cuts deeply into the possibility of violations of civil rights, specifically the Bill of Rights and its Fourth Amendment. This can be considered extremely opposite to the principle of reasonable and particular searches since it permits the government to enter any private property and perform a search without giving notice in advance, hence easily violating the privacy and property rights of the citizens. Moreover, such warrants violate the due process protections of the Fifth Amendment in that such lack of immediate notification could inhibit individuals from challenging such a search or knowing on what basis such an investigation is occurring along with possible abuses of power. In addition, such secrecy does deter people from engaging in constitutionally protected First Amendment activities such as political dissent or seeking legal counsel due to fear of wiretapping. All in all, “sneak and peek” warrants contribute to an atmosphere of surveillance that many feel can only serve to erode civil liberties and the Bill of Rights protections.

1. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the US government from establishing a national religion or preferring one religion over another. To determine whether a law or governmental action violates the above clause, the Supreme Court devised what has come to be known as the “Lemon Test” in its decision Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971). It is three-pronged: it provides a test of a valid secular purpose of the law, a test of a primary effect that does not advance or inhibit religion, and a test of no excessive government entanglement with religion. Any one of these being violated may render an action unconstitutional, thus supporting the argument of separation of church and state.
2. Yes, flag burning of the U.S. under the First Amendment was protected in the Supreme
   Court case Texas v. Johnson, 1989. The Court here ruled that the burning of the flag was
   a symbolic speech that was accorded full protection under the First Amendment. The Court reiterated that any prohibition of expression by the government can’t be because it is offensive or disagreeable. The ruling underlined the principle that the First Amendment protects not just popular speech but also forms of expression that might provoke strong reactions, thereby reinforcing the importance of free speech in a democratic society.
3. The Fifth Amendment protects a person from having to answer any questions that might involve him or her in a crime. Hence, when anybody says, “I’m taking the Fifth,” he is invoking the right not to say or disclose anything that may incriminate him in court. The term is used primarily in a legal context but has passed into common usage to refer to a refusal to provide information.

1.In Federalist #10, James Madison discusses the concept of “balance between liberty and order”

2. In Federalist No 10, for example, James Madison identifies private property as the source of
   mankind’s material prosperity and explains diversity of interests and capacities as the reason
   why some people are rich while others are poor. Man’s ‘talents for satisfaction are very
   different’, and so is his goal setting and opportunity to advance himself. The resulting inequality
   is important because inequality leads to the formation of factions whose exercise of power can
   curtail the rights of the less fortunate, which is why a strongly constituted, representative
   government can help to diffuse these tensions and secure the rights of the governed. Again, this
   sense of the founders’ consternation before such a dilemma – their idealism counterposed with their vigilance – explains why they did not believe that mere liberty alone, or even a measure of material prosperity, was either enough to guarantee their ‘free state’ or to support the holiness of their cause.
3. I do so agree to that very sensible explanation which is given of such riches and poverty as may exist among a people of civilization, in Federalist No 10.Among many things, Madison has identified private property – itself the source of material wealth – as ‘the principal seat of the passions’, which must be accommodated by civic society in its management of differences that will inevitably arise. Madison thus foreshadows volumes of subsequent truths about the dynamics of inequality: that ‘the diversity of talents, of genius, and of temperament, which nature has implanted in man’, is true and inherent. And that the above-mentioned differences as well as cultural prejudices are endemic to a complex and sophisticated society. Accordingly, ‘the latent causes of faction’ will always be ‘the same with what are his understanding that material wealth alone – or the liberty and system of civic laws secured by a republican government – cannot inevitably or certainly guarantee a just republic, must be the guiding principle for a constitutional republic under which the many will be governed, not by the few, but by elected representatives representative of a citizenry divided by differing interests. The sages among us are mindful and alert to the crises that may arise from inequalities in the distribution and accumulation of property, and additional pitfalls that exist for any system of local self- government that can devolve into the politics of a faction. It is the foreknowledge of their dangers that keeps a society stable and free. If those dangers become eclipsed, a system of republican government cannot endure.
4. The primary goal, or “first object,” of the U.S. government is to protect the rights of the people, and above all, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as is outlined in the constitutional documents. Some may find this statement surprising because in fact, contemporary
   discourse tends to center on much wider concerns such as economic development, state welfare
   and general order. In fact, many today may see the government as dealing with these common
   issues, for which such actions were made, versus only the individual civil rights and liberties, no
   matter how important they are. This sort of brings out the transformation of the focus of values;
   instead of protecting individual rights which was the aim in the beginning, in modern debates,
   there is always the aspect of who takes care of the individual rights and the social obligations.
   Similarly, this changing comprehension raises a few interesting challenges about the current day
   government capacity to determine how well it can discharge its primary function.
5. It might come as a surprise that Federalist No. 10 endorses a republican form rather than the
   pure democracy Accepted by many Americans. Democracies were, therefore, looked with
   suspicion by Madison and the framers. The reasons for this suspicion were because of the
   dangers of pure democracy, since the political minorities’ rights would be trenched easily
   thundering the tyranny of the majority. Madison, yeah those were the times when… felt that
   since the populace would exercise direct democracy, there would be factions which would clash and fight over issues and lose sight of the greater good, which was the interests of the nation, drowned by the silly tempers of the majority. In republican forms of government, there are representatives elected to take such decisions which, in turn, has a larger effect of balancing various aspects and also protecting the rights of the individuals.  Whereas in the latter one, Madison hoped that he would provide the means to cope with the diversity including inequality while also protecting the rights of all citizens and more importantly, how the founding ideals were to avert chaos.

1. The readings suggest that social class divisions in 1787 mirrored today’s, with power
   reserved for wealthy property owners. Lower-income groups, including slaves, servants,
   and women, were excluded from voting and political participation. Scholars like M.
   Parenti and Charles Beard argue that the Constitution was crafted to benefit the elite, as
   only property-owning white males had the right to vote, leaving the interests of the
   majority unrepresented.
2. Equality movements have led to progress, particularly in improving the status of women
   and other marginalized groups. However, the wealthy elite still maintain considerable
   political power. While today’s society offers more social mobility compared to the rigid
   class structure of early U.S. history, economic disparities persist. Special interest groups
   often have more influence than the average voter, highlighting how the upper class
   continues to shape political outcomes. Despite changes, the core issue of unequal power
   distribution between the wealthy and the broader population remains a significant feature
   of modern society, much like it was in the past.
3. The framers of the Constitution harbored a deep-seated fear of democracy, viewing it as a
   potential pathway to mob rule that could undermine the rights of the minority, especially
   the wealthy elite. They were concerned that individuals from lower economic
   backgrounds and with limited intellectual capacities could assert their opinions, making it
   harder for the elite to exploit and manipulate them. According to Parenti, the Constitution
   was crafted to safeguard the power of the affluent class, ensuring that the majority did not
   wield excessive influence. Beard further emphasizes that the economic interests of this
   elite group heavily influenced the Constitution’s design, as the framers worried that direct
   democracy could create instability and threaten their financial stability.

1. The relation of the citizens to the government remains considerably different between federal, confederation, and unitary systems; the main precept is, however, the distribution of power. In a federal system, for example, citizens interact with national and regional governments because powers are constitutionally divided, hence giving the people a chance to influence policies at different levels, like in the United States. By contrast, a confederation grants the central government very little authority and most power lies in the regional governments; as such citizens have little contact with or dependence on the central government, which is too weak to influence national decisions forcefully, an example being the early United States government under the Articles of Confederation or the current European Union. Accordingly, in a unitary system, the majority of the
   governing power would lie with a strong central government; citizens normally interact with this central government only, and regional governments typically play a minor role when compared, for example, to the United Kingdom or France. The degree of engagement of the citizens and their consequently exertable influence are related, hence, to a great degree to the structural form of organization of power in each system.
2. Division of power refers to the allocation of authority and responsibility between various levels of government-comprised mainly of central and regional or sub-national -with the purpose of preventing the concentration of power in one hand, as well as ensuring checks and balances. In a federal system, powers are divided in a way that provides for a central government, along with regional or state or provincial governments, each with its own specific responsibilities as assigned by a constitution. This would allow local governance and decision-making mechanisms that may be able to address regional needs yet still be part of a united nation. In the unitary system, power is more centralized within the national government, which holds most of the powers but sometimes devolves some of its powers to local governments. In a confederation, the greater share of powers is possessed by the regional governments, with a very limited system of powers for the central authority. The separation of powers is an important aspect of democratic governance, accountability, and the efficient involvement of the citizens in the management of political affairs to ensure that no single force can monopolize politics.
3. Throughout the crisis, the federal government has played a coercive role in New York state and sub state governments through the provision of crucial funds and setting up health guidelines to guide their responses. For example, federal relief money accorded to states, such as Coronavirus Relief Fund money, was released to New York in order to enable tackling various economic problems; at first, there was some difficulty in the local governments utilizing the funds efficiently. Similarly, federal guidelines forced Governor Andrew Cuomo to use school closures and an order for social distancing as a means to slow down the virus;, first. Of course, this dynamic often put state and local leaders in opposing directions, especially in New York City, as Mayor Bill de Blasio and Governor Cuomo had very sharp differences over means of lockdowns and public health orders. While the federal guidelines led the way, state officials implemented measures, considering local conditions-a challenging dimension of federalism in crisis management.

1. What made the biggest impression to me was that the inequality in wealth is that the top 1% of Americans hold more assets than the bottom 90% combined. This figure exemplifies the excessive concentration of wealth in the United States, where a small minority of the population controls an unfair share of the country’s resources. The wealthiest 1% of Americans hold more money than the bottom 90% combined, thanks to inheritance, stagnant wages, inequality in income, favorable tax policy, and capital ownership. These elements form a self-reinforcing system in which the few can continue to collect and enhance their money while the majority struggles to overcome finances, resulting in increased inequality.
2.The disparity in wealth has far-reaching consequences, ranging from decreased social mobility and political power to economic instability and social dissatisfaction These dynamics are manifested in everyday life through differences in education, healthcare, housing, and political power, resulting in a society in which the rich continue to prosper while the poor face growing hardships. This mismatch has long-term societal effects, including increased division, instability, and a collapse in social unity. For example I come from a low income family which lead to me taking out student loans to help pay for my education. While I was working full time to cover my expenses, the cost of tuition and living was too expensive without trying to avoid borrowing.