As pointed out by Martin Luther King Jr., what makes the difference between just and unjust laws. The question deals directly with the core of our module, and I will return to it in our second exam.

Just laws are those that conform to the principles of ethics, ensuring fairness in reward or punishment, while unjust laws deny dignity, violate accepted moral codes, and result in inequality.

Do you think this constitutes an important distinction? Could it make a difference in the way individuals, or society at large, goes about its life? Might it make a difference politically?

Indeed, telling from unjust laws is critical in the identification of social ills. It is important in developing a more courteous, ethical community with social inclusions which accord due respect to all.
Looking back at our discussion based on the first question, give an example of one unjust law and one just law that exist today in the United States. Explain what makes each law unjust or just based on King’s definitions. An illustration of an inequitable law is the bail system, which has a disproportionate impact on individuals belonging to lower socioeconomic strata, thereby constraining their capacity to attain release. In contrast, a fair law is represented by civil rights legislation, which promotes equality and provides protection against racial discrimination.

The Supreme Court case Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes was a landmark case concerning the certification of class actions. The Court denied the request of the plaintiff class of almost 1.5 million women to combine into a single action against Wal-Mart for sex-based employment discrimination.

The central bulletin of the Court’s decision is found under the banner of ‘commonality,’ which requires that the members of the class have common questions of law or fact. Yet the plaintiffs find it very difficult to show that Wal-Mart’s managers exercised their discretion to make pay, promotion, or other employment decisions uniformly, in a way constitutive of a corporate policy.

The Court found that the claims presented in this case were too diverse and too individualistic to satisfy the commonality requirement. They concluded that there was insufficient evidence established indicating that Wal-Mart maintained a generalized discrimination policy.

This case exposes the complications of certifying class action for thousands upon thousands of class members where workplace discrimination allegations are involved. It strongly emphasizes establishing some base commonality among all class members wishing to bring a class action.

1. The judiciary often displays a far better knack for the protection of individual rights compared to the elected branches of government, for a few fundamental reasons. Generally, however, judges are duty bound to be impartial, basing decisions on legal statutes and constitutional law but not yielding to political pressure or public sentiment. It is this apoliticalism that means they can actively defend individual rights in situations where such defense is invidious or politically fraught. Second, the courts have the ability of judicial review, the power to strike down legislative and executive actions that violate constitutional rights. This function is a vital buffer against the powers of the legislature and the executive. Finally, reliance on established legal precedent fosters consistency and stability in the protection of individual rights, thus guaranteeing that similar cases will be adjudicated consistently over time. Perhaps the prime example of the judiciary’s contribution to the protection of individual rights is the one featured in the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The Supreme Court’s ruling, which effectively stated that state laws mandating the segregation of public schools for African American and Caucasian students were unconstitutional, was a key turning point in the battle against racial segregation, despite massive opposition from many elected officials and segments of society.

2. Federal judges, even Supreme Court justices, are appointed, not elected, and this has led to discussions of the democratic validity of the judicial system. A view, for example, is that the absence of direct responsibility makes the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, intrinsically undemocratic. Because federal judges are appointed and not elected, they lack public accountability, a feature that is arguably undemocratic because the public has no say in their appointment or removal. Furthermore, the lifetime tenure given to federal judges allows them to make decisions that could shape the nation for very long periods without the need for frequent electoral checkups. The procedure for the appointment of federal judges is exactly so structured as to isolate the judiciary from any undue political pressure and partisan quarrels, in order that the judges could at times base their decisions not only on the logic of precedent and litigation, but on the factual, legal and constitutional law framework of the nation.

1. The war on terror differs from classic wars in several ways. A key distinction is the type of adversaries; instead of being fought between countries, this conflict targets non-state entities and terrorist groups. Additionally, the scope of this war extends beyond particular areas, covering numerous nations and regions. Moreover, terrorists employ unconventional methods, like suicide bombings and cyber-attacks, which diverge from the usual tactics seen in military confrontations.

2. The Patriot Act’s “Roving Wiretaps” appear to contravene the Bill of Rights, possibly also infringing on the Fourth Amendment, which safeguards against unwarranted searches and seizures. The broad wording of the Patriot Act could lead to the privacy infringements of innocent individuals not implicated in criminal behavior.

3. The “Sneak and Peek” warrants breach the Bill of Rights. These warrants also pose issues under the Fourth Amendment, as they permit searches without immediate alert, potentially violating the right to be secure in one’s home and belongings against unreasonable searches.

1. The Establishment Clause within the First Amendment forbids the federal government from favoring or backing any specific religion, thereby maintaining a clear distinction between religious institutions and the government. The Lemon Test, developed through the Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), is used to assess whether a law breaches the Establishment Clause. According to this test, a law must serve a secular legislative purpose, not primarily promote or hinder religion, and not excessively involve the government in religious matters.

2. The act of burning the flag is safeguarded by the First Amendment as a type of symbolic expression. This principle was solidified in the Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson (1989), where the Court declared that flag burning is considered symbolic expression that is entitled to protection under the First Amendment.

3. When an individual declares, “I’m taking the Fifth,” they are exercising their Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. This entails that they decline to answer questions or disclose information that might lead to their own prosecution in a legal case.

1. In a federal system such as that of the United States, citizens engage in governance by electing representatives across various tiers: local, state, and national. This framework facilitates a distribution of power among different governmental levels, ensuring that the voices of citizens resonate across multiple platforms. Conversely, in a confederation, authority is predominantly vested in local governments, resulting in a comparatively weaker central authority. Here, citizens exert a more immediate influence over their local administrations, which wield the majority of governing power. While this arrangement can foster significant local autonomy, it may also encounter challenges related to national cohesion and coordination. In a unitary system, the central government retains the bulk of the power, with local governments exercising minimal autonomy. Citizens primarily engage with the central authority, which is responsible for most decision-making processes. This can lead to more consistent policies but may also diminish local representation. 2. The concept of power distribution, commonly known as the separation of powers, entails allocating governmental authority among distinct branches to avert the concentration of power within any single branch. This typically encompasses the legislative branch, responsible for law-making; the executive branch, tasked with law enforcement; and the judicial branch, which interprets laws. Such a system promotes a balance of power and incorporates checks and balances, enabling each branch to restrict the powers of the others, thereby fostering accountability and mitigating the risk of power abuses. For a visual representation of this concept, one may refer to a TED-Ed video that elucidates the division of power within the United States government, detailing the roles and functions of each branch and their interactions through checks and balances. 3. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government exerted considerable influence over the actions of New York state and local authorities through a variety of measures. The federal government allocated significant financial resources to New York via several relief packages, which included funding for healthcare, unemployment assistance, and other forms of support.

The notion of a faction, as articulated in Federalist Paper #10, bears a significant resemblance to the previously discussed concept of social classes. Factions, akin to social classes, are composed of individuals who are bound together by common interests or economic conditions, which may stand in opposition to the interests of other factions. Just as factions may seek to assert their political influence or advance their specific agendas, social classes can engender divergent objectives and priorities, particularly evident in the contrast between the affluent elite and the working class. Both notions underscore the potential conflicts that can emerge when particular groups endeavor to safeguard their interests, often at the detriment of others, a concern that was paramount for the framers of the Constitution.

In Federalist #10, the origin of wealth, or private property, is attributed to the “diversity in the faculties of men.” Here, “faculties” pertains to the inherent abilities, talents, and opportunities that individuals possess, which facilitate their ability to acquire and manage property. This variation in faculties elucidates why some individuals attain wealth through property ownership, while others remain impoverished. The framers posited that certain individuals, owing to their skills or circumstances, are more adept at accumulating wealth, whereas those lacking such faculties face diminished opportunities for success. This perspective offers a foundational philosophical view on social and economic inequality, positing that property rights stem from individual capabilities rather than external influences such as chance or societal constructs.

The acceptance of Madison’s interpretation of wealth and poverty in Federalist #10 is contingent upon one’s viewpoint regarding social and economic dynamics. Madison’s assertion—that disparities in wealth primarily arise from individual faculties, including talents, abilities, and opportunities—does illuminate a crucial element of wealth generation. Individuals endowed with specific skills, education, or resources frequently possess enhanced prospects for wealth accumulation.Federalist #10, authored by James Madison, articulates that the fundamental purpose of the U.S. government is to safeguard the varied and unequal capacities for property acquisition among its citizens. Madison posits that disparities in wealth arise from the differing abilities of individuals, and it is the government’s responsibility to protect these distinctions. This entails ensuring that those endowed with the talent or capability to generate wealth are not obstructed in their endeavors by those lacking similar abilities. This interpretation of the government’s primary function may be unexpected to contemporary audiences, as many perceive the government’s role as primarily focused on promoting equality, safeguarding rights, and delivering services to all citizens, rather than prioritizing the protection of wealth accumulation for specific groups. Current discussions often emphasize the government’s responsibility to mitigate inequalities, while Madison’s viewpoint underscores the importance of maintaining and defending inequalities rooted in individual faculties, particularly concerning property and wealth.

It is also noteworthy that Federalist #10 expresses a clear opposition to pure democracy, advocating instead for a republican (representative) form of governance. Madison, as a member of the affluent land-owning class, reflects the apprehensions of this social stratum. He and his fellow framers of the Constitution were concerned that in a pure democracy, the majority—predominantly composed of the less affluent—might leverage their political power to implement policies detrimental to the property and wealth of the elite minority. In such a system, the majority’s will could potentially eclipse the interests of the wealthy minority. Madison was particularly wary of factions representing poorer citizens advocating for wealth redistribution, imposing higher taxes on the affluent, or enacting laws that could undermine property rights. Such outcomes would directly conflict with the interests of wealthy landowners, who aimed to preserve their economic status and influence. A republican form of government, therefore, was seen as a safeguard against these potential threats.

The Constitution was largely authored by wealthy merchants, landowners and slave owners jealous of their property rights and anxious to keep the less wealthy from upsetting orderly social relations. They designed this government, as the readings say, to ‘check the “disorder and absurdities” of democracy and stop the poor from rising up’. Property was at the heart of it, too: ‘to secure property’, were the magic words that would support the economic interests of the wealthy.  But this process of constitution craft by smaller ‘elite’ committees excluded wide segments of the population. It excluded most members of society without property, it excluded white males without property, it excluded Native Americans, it excluded enslaved people and indentured servants, and it excluded women. The people crafting the Constitution were excluding the very majority of people who would make up early American society, and who laboured under the economic and political structures designed by the few. Early American society suffered deeply from class-based divisions.  Even though the social orders are fundamentaly simmilar for early American and today, there are differences bethween two times. In both times ownership of the wealth and property was important for social standing and small upper class could to control the development of society. At the same time there are differences betweeen early American and our days.Gathering of Wealth and Authority: Similar to the early days of the United States, the current era sees a small group of people controlling a large portion of the wealth. In both times, this privileged group has a lot of sway over decisions in politics, the economy, and society. For instance, in the 18th century, the rich landowners, traders, and slave owners played a big role in forming the Constitution to safeguard their own interests, much like how today’s big companies and wealthy individuals have a strong impact on political activities through their support for lobbying and donations to campaigns. Exclusion of Outcasts: In both historical periods, there’s a clear divide between those who have access to resources and power and those who don’t. In the early days of the United States, this divide included women, enslaved individuals, Native Americans, and men without property. Although there have been major legal and social progressions since then, deep-rooted inequalities based on race, gender, and social class continue to exist. Outcast groups often face significant obstacles in moving up economically and gaining political representation, though they have more rights and opportunities for involvement than in earlier times. Comparisons: Wider Political Involvement: A key contrast is the broadening of political rights. In the early days of the United States, only white male landowners were allowed to vote or hold public office. Nowadays, the right to vote is available to all citizens, no matter their race, gender, or wealth. However, despite these legal improvements, economic differences still affect the political power of those with less money compared to the affluent. Opportunities for Moving Up: While the gap between social classes remains, the contemporary economy offers more chances for moving up the social ladder than in the 18th century. Back then, a person’s social standing was largely determined by their birth and the wealth they inherited, and chances for moving up were scarce. Today, while it’s still hard for many to improve their economic status due to systemic inequalities, there are more ways for individuals to advance in social class through education, starting their own businesses, or working in industries that are in high demand. In summary, while the fundamental setup of social classes, with a wealthy minority controlling much of the power, remains the same, the current era has seen significant progress in terms of political inclusivity and economic chances. However, deep economic disparities continue to show that some aspects of the early U.S. social class structure are still relevant today.

Gathering of Wealth and Authority: Similar to the early days of the United States, the current era sees a small group of people controlling a large portion of the wealth. In both times, this privileged group has a lot of sway over decisions in politics, the economy, and society. For instance, in the 18th century, the rich landowners, traders, and slave owners played a big role in forming the Constitution to safeguard their own interests, much like how today’s big companies and wealthy individuals have a strong impact on political activities through their support for lobbying and donations to campaigns. Exclusion of Outcasts: In both historical periods, there’s a clear divide between those who have access to resources and power and those who don’t. In the early days of the United States, this divide included women, enslaved individuals, Native Americans, and men without property. Although there have been major legal and social progressions since then, deep-rooted inequalities based on race, gender, and social class continue to exist. Outcast groups often face significant obstacles in moving up economically and gaining political representation, though they have more rights and opportunities for involvement than in earlier times. Comparisons: Wider Political Involvement: A key contrast is the broadening of political rights. In the early days of the United States, only white male landowners were allowed to vote or hold public office. Nowadays, the right to vote is available to all citizens, no matter their race, gender, or wealth. However, despite these legal improvements, economic differences still affect the political power of those with less money compared to the affluent. Opportunities for Moving Up: While the gap between social classes remains, the contemporary economy offers more chances for moving up the social ladder than in the 18th century. Back then, a person’s social standing was largely determined by their birth and the wealth they inherited, and chances for moving up were scarce. Today, while it’s still hard for many to improve their economic status due to systemic inequalities, there are more ways for individuals to advance in social class through education, starting their own businesses, or working in industries that are in high demand. In summary, while the fundamental setup of social classes, with a wealthy minority controlling much of the power, remains the same, the current era has seen significant progress in terms of political inclusivity and economic chances. However, deep economic disparities continue to show that some aspects of the early U.S. social class structure are still relevant today.The creators of the Constitution primarily came from the more affluent, land-rich, and business sectors, and their apprehension towards democracy was mainly driven by worries about safeguarding their social and financial interests. They perceived democracy as a mechanism that might give power to the less privileged groups—such as small farmers, workers, and the majority who were economically disadvantaged—who they thought could use their political clout to redistribute wealth, question property rights, and upset the established social order.

Concerns about Wealth Redistribution:

The wealthier class, who possessed significant wealth, land, and resources, was apprehensive that a fully democratic system could enable the poorer majority to pass laws that might endanger property ownership or redistribute wealth. For instance, they were worried that if the lower classes gained too much sway, they might advocate for higher taxes on the rich or policies that would weaken their economic supremacy. This fear of economic turmoil and the redistribution of wealth was a key reason for their opposition to direct democracy, as the wealthy class aimed to retain control over economic assets.

Preserving Social Stratification:

The affluent framers were also deeply committed to upholding the social stratification that elevated them to the top. They believed that the lower classes were not educated or wise enough to govern effectively. This paternalistic perspective led them to establish a system that curtailed the direct democratic input, like creating a Senate and Electoral College to moderate the decisions made by the general populace. Their goal was to prevent what they viewed as the “disorder” of mob rule or the risk of majoritarian tyranny, where the majority could impose its will without considering the rights of property owners and the elite.

Historical Influences:

The framers drew inspiration from historical events, such as the instability they observed in post-Revolutionary America, particularly Shays’ Rebellion (1786-1787), during which economically struggling farmers rebelled against state governments for tax relief and debt forgiveness. This incident reinforced the fears among the elite that a democratic system allowing broad participation could lead to rebellions and challenges to the social and economic status quo.

In conclusion, the individuals who composed the Constitution were wary of democracy due to their concerns about the empowerment of the lower classes to challenge their wealth, property rights, and social dominance. They believed that democracy posed a threat to the stability of the economic and social systems from which they derived benefits, hence they devised a constitution that limited the direct influence of the people to protect their interests.

The M-C-M’ diagram is key to understanding how capitalists sustain and grow their wealth within a capitalist system. Here’s a breakdown of what each element represents and how they interact.

M (Money): This is the starting point for capitalists. They begin with a certain amount of money that they use to invest in the production process.
C (Commodities): The money is used to purchase commodities, which can include labor, raw materials, and machinery. These commodities are essential for creating goods or services.
M’ (Increased Money): After the commodities are produced and sold, the capitalists receive money back, but ideally, this amount is greater than the initial investment. The difference between the original amount of money (M) and the amount received after sales (M’) represents profit.
The process can be summarized as follows: a capitalist invests money (M) to buy resources and labor (C), produces goods, and sells them for a higher price, thus generating more money (M’).

This cycle allows capitalists to continually reinvest their profits into further production, expanding their wealth over time. Key factors that enable this process include market demand, efficiency in production, and the ability to control costs, especially labor costs. By consistently repeating this cycle—transforming money into commodities and back into more money—capitalists can maintain and increase their wealth, reinforcing their economic power within society.