What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (Hint: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what this legal terms means, as it is key to the court’s decision).

The Supreme Court made the decision in the Wal-Mart Case that there was not enough evidence to conduct a class. With this, Dukes had a stake in both legal and social matters that went beyond the women’s claims and Wal-Mart’s employment practices. The court had rules that the women’s additional demand for back pay could only belong in a b(3) claim, which would be consumer class actions. Unfortunately, this only caused the women’s class status to start back where they were. The Supreme Court also rules that the class represented, failed to meet Rules 23’s commonality requirement, that there be “questions of law or fact” common to the class. Due to this Supreme Court decision, 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.

In what ways is the court system better suited to protect the individual, than are the elected branches of government (such as Congress and the President; pr the Mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly)? Given an example to illustrate your argument.

The Supreme Court does not have opinions or influences from the public. As the Supreme Court are elected through vacancy on the Courts and the senate vote to confirm the individual. Executive and legislative branches play a big role in composition of the Supreme Court. A good example to showcase would be Brown v. Board of Education. With the case of Brown v. Board of Education, the outcome was the Supreme Court ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional.

Think about how federal judges get to become judges – unlike presidents, mayors and members of Congress (and other legislatures), they are not elected, but rather appointed. Many Americans have thus called the federal courts system, and especially the Supreme Court, anti-democratic places in our government. Do you agree that the Supreme Court, for example, is an anti-democratic part of our government? What could be the reason for this way of choosing judges in federal courts? (Hint: think about our discussion of “Federalist #10” and which social class plays a leading role in our government system)

I do not believe that the Supreme Court is an anti democratic part of our government. I believe the reason as to why this is the way of choosing judges in federal courts is to ensure a independent judiciary and to protect judges from partisan pressures. I feel as we the public do often give a lot of option as to what outcomes do come from the courts, this is to ensure a non clouded judgement from political pressure when deciding cases.

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

It is a new that war of terror is a war of mind versus war against specific bodies, specific land, and specific resources. As P. Williams states within her essay, there is always a certain hypnosis to the language of war in which war means peace and peace-mothering invites war. It is different from traditional wars as with this being a war of mind, the enemy becomes anybody who makes us afraid.

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 of the Patriot Act seems to violate the Bill of Rights by the Justice Department has long complained about the restrictions that required separate court authorizations for each device used by the target of an investigation. However, the roving wiretaps are allowed against suspected spies and terrorists. This violates it as citizens believe that the language of the Patriot Act could lead to privacy violations of anyone who comes into casual contact with the suspect. The amendment it seems to violate is the Fourth Amendment as it sits at the boundary between general individual freedoms and the rights of those suspected of crimes.

What about “Sneek and Peek” warrants?

Sneek and peek of the Patriot Act as well seems to violate the Bill of Rights by critics saying the provision allows the use of “sneek and peek” warrants for even minor crimes, not just terror and espionage cases. The amendment that seems to be violated by the sneek and peek warrants is the fourth amendment as well.

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

The Establishment Clause is based upon the first amendment with Congress being prohibited from creating or promoting a state-sponsored religion. Most countries outside of the United States had already established a church or religion. If the United States had wanted to establish a single national religion, the diversity of religious beliefs would have already have prevented it as settlers came from different backgrounds. However, the establish clause today continues to tend to be interpreted a bit more broadly than in the past. The Lemon Test is related by having three criteria that must be satisfied for such a law or action to be found constitutional and that have to remain in effect. These three criteria are the action or law must not lead to excessive government entanglement with religion, the action or law cannot either inhibit or advance religious practice; it should be neutral in its effects on religion, the action or law must have some secular purpose; there must be some non-religious justification for the law.

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

The burning of the United States flag is protected by the First Amendment as it was a form of symbolic speech. As it is protected, they also found the law as applied to flag desecration to be unconstitutional. The court case Texas v. Johnson played a big role in this decision. With the Supreme Court making this decision, this was strictly criticized. Due to this overcome, Congress responded by passing the law of “The Flag Protection Act”. This was to overrule the decision however, it was also called towards unconstitutional.

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

When an individual says “I’m taking the Fifth”, it means that they have the right not to give evidence in court or to law enforcement officers that might constitute an admission of guilt or responsibility for a crime. Even in a situation where it is a criminal trial, if someone does not testify in his or her own defense, the prosecution cannot use that failure to testify as evidence of guilt or imply that an innocent person would testify.

Describe the primary differences in the role of citizens in government, among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems.

The differences in the role of citizens between government, federal, confederation and unitary systems are citizens among federal, citizens can vote. With the confederation system, citizens relie on their local government such as police to take control. Citizens leave the control to be taken by government within the unitary system.

Briefly explain how you understand the system of division of power.

Understanding the system of division of power that is known our government is broken down into three categories, legislative, executive and judicial. Legislative consists of 100 U.S Senators and 435 House Representatives. As these individuals are represented as the U.S Congress, they are known for making laws, approving federal judges, federal justices, passing the national budget and declaring war. Executive consists of the president and Vice President. Both enforce laws that congress sets along with working with their cabinet to make discussions upon defense, treasure and homeland security. They also appoint government officials, commands arm forces and meet with other nations. Judicial consists of all courts including federal district courts and the U.S supreme. For the Supreme Court, 9 Justices are appointed for life as they settle state disputes, hears court appeals and determines if laws are constitutional. Both courts interpret laws and punishes those who breaks them.

How does the federal government shape the actions of state and local governments? Write your answer based on doing a bit of research on how the federal government has influenced the actions of NY state and local governments, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The federal government shapes the actions of state and local governments by federal government gives out distribution of grants, incentives and aid. Federal government throughout locals give them the opportunity to solve common problems such as funding and education. They’re main responsibilities are to manage public services such as parks, libraries, schools, police and fire services. 

Based on the arguments presented in Readings 6.1 and 6.2, which social class wrote the Constitution, and which class was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process? In your comment, make sure you clearly specify the difference between the two classes by giving examples from the readings.

The upper class were the ones who wrote the Constitution. Both readings 6.1 and 6.2 detail greatly upon as “big landowners, merchants and bankers exercised a strong influence over political economic life.” The classes that were excluded and were not allowed to participate in this process were lower class. As stated in Reading 6.1, “All Native Americans, persons of African descent, women, indentured servants and white males lacking sufficient property.” As the upper class are included with individuals with wealth and power and the lower class are included with individuals with less wealth and power, this was very unfair. Throughout the timeline of writing the Constitution, only property owning white males were able to vote. Within reading 6.2, the quote “the government wanted a stronger central power that would resold ve problems among the thirteen states regarding trade and duties, protect. overseas commercial and diplomatic interests, effectively propagate the financial and commercial interests of the affluent class and defend the wealthy from the competing claims of other class within the society.”

Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain.

The social class structure of early United States society I would describe is about different from ours today. As prior to years ago, only upper classes and those who were wealthy enough have such great power of authority. In today’s society, we all have an equal amount of power to be able to speak on what we feel. Although many political and economical living has many individuals who are born into or become wealthy, no matter what social class you are in, you have power to become and speak upon what you believe in and for what is right within our society. 

Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy? Hint: think about how to answer this question by discussing it in terms of social classes.

The people, our Founding Fathers, who wrote the Constitution were so afraid of democracy. In Reading 6.1, George Washington stated “to contain the threat of the people rather than to embrace their participation and their competence.” The founding fathers themselves were wealthy and powerful however, they wanted “to contain the threat of the people rather than embrace their participation and their competence.”

What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of?

The concept of social class reminds me very similarity of faction as faction is amounting to a majority or 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 is very similar to social classes as they are broken down into social and economic statuses.

According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), what is the sourceof wealth (private property)? What factor explains why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property, and others don’t (thus remaining poor)? This is a key question, because it shows how the authors of the Constitution thought about the difference between different classes of Americans! HINT: focus on the passage that begins: “The diversity in the faculties (WHAT DOES FACULTIES mean or refer to?) of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not les….”

The source of wealth (private property) is the facilities being built up. Within the reading, it states “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.” The factor that explains why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property and others don’t (thus remaining poor) is “From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.”

Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?

I do not particularly agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty because have too much of wealth and poverty can be very dangerous in a society. Individuals believe they can start taking control within their power of wealth and do what ever it is they want to do and not face consequences.

What is the core mission (“first object”) of the US government? Does this surprise you, does it sound different from what our society today seems to suggest the core mission of the government is? Explain.

The core mission of the US government is that “As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests.”

Given the discussion in questions 1-4, are you surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy, and supports a Republican (representative) form of government? Why would d the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government? Hint: think about how this question connects with the social classes…

I am not surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy and supports a Republican form of government. The author states within the article “From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction . . . A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” He showcases the two differences of the views he sees for democracy and republic.

Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p.29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why?

The statistic on wealth inequality in the US that made the biggest impression on me was “Without surplus value, the capitalist could not have come into being, nor could they survive, so that is always in their interests, to seek to increase it either by playing on relative or absolute surplus value, or by some combination of the two”. Wealth inequality has increased I feel over the years and many are putting funds into investments and stocks.

What could be some of the implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities? Do you see this dynamic getting played out in everyday life in our society? How so? Example?

Some implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities are lower average education levels as many only graduate high school to then begin to put funds into investments and stocks and profits. I do see this dynamic being played out in our everyday life in our society as many want to own designer items and the newest technology. Not everyone can afford these materalistic items however, as long as everyone sees they have some type of wealth, then they enjoy it. The dynamic of wealth now of days did go downhill.