Ruth Gilmore makes the claim that the connection that is made between whiteness and racism is based upon capitalism not having the ability to stop being racial capitalism even if all white people were removed from the equation. The main issue that causes racial capitalism is the comparison that is made from capitalism and the racial hierarchy. The term whiteness refers to the advantages in society that white people have and upholding inequalities between race groups. The concept of whiteness is rooted in how distinctions in race are used to display inequality and because of that, implies how racism isn’t made about specific groups of people. Instead, it relies on a systemic structure that depends on that division of race. 

Gilmore’s claim on the prison system creating criminals explains how instead of focusing on the rehabilitation of prison inmates, the system rather creates a category of criminals that keep returning to jail. The creation of this category of criminals are created in a cycle that have individuals being categorized and leading to longer sentences. Because of portrayals of bad behavior, other individuals can be perceived as “criminal” regardless of the severity of the crime. From the labeling made by the prison system, it causes individuals to be punished and assists in more people being incarcerated. I would personally say I agree with Gilmore’s claim mainly because of the fact that prison is supposed to be for rehabilitation, but the use of labels causes individuals to be defined by that criminal status. 

Gilmore explains “liberation struggle” as a collective effort that makes a change towards social and political change. She affirms that liberation struggles are made up of specific issues that individuals have and the needs of those individuals in particular locations. To understand these struggles means to understand the context from racism, global capitalism, etc. This kind of struggle is being able to recognize the injustice that exists and fighting against it. It’s something that grows overtime that relies on other people to enact.

To answer the discussion board question, in the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case, the Supreme Court  made a decision that had centered on the idea of “commonality” which was a requirement for class-action lawsuits. The case included over 1.5 million women that had made allegations towards Wal-Mart for their discrimination of women in the workplace through the imbalance of the amount they were paid and decisions regarding their promotions. Commonality in legal terms means the use of common questions of law or fact that affected the class. To proceed with the class, the plaintiffs had to find a basis on their claims of their discrimination that could be solved collectively. In a 5-4 decision that was ruled against the plaintiffs, they decided that there wasn’t a connected link between the corporate policies in the workplace that connected the acts of discrimination to each other. The importance of the court’s decision revealed the challenges that come with facing claims of systemic discrimination under class-action lawsuits. It displays the complex process of addressing that kind of discrimination in that environment.  

1. To answer the first question, the way that the court system is structured is with the main purpose of being able to protect an individual’s rights. They conduct these protections in a much more efficient and effective way when even compared to the different branches of government. In contrast to congress, the president, or the rest of the elected branches of government, the court system is able to function by covering for public opinion. Because of this specific focus that the courts have, it is able to allow judges to have their undivided focus with the constitutional merits that reside in each case without worrying about the consequences of their decisions. The court system has the jurisdiction to reexamine laws and/or actions as a way to make sure they don’t violate individual rights. An example of this is how the supreme court approaches voting rights, and through that, is able to take stances that could be challenging politically for officials that were elected to support. 

2. With federal judges in comparison to the president, mayors, and members of congress are appointed rather than elected into the position. With these rules in mind, people have perceived the court system as being “anti-democratic” due to the lack of an actual election for those in those positions like a president. Although there is a reasoning behind these positions being appointed in this system and the reasoning behind that is from the lifetime of their terms in comparison to the previous positions of power. These federal judges are appointed serving lifetime terms so it allows for decisions that aren’t influenced by public opinion and making choices that correlate to what they think is the right decision under the constitution. Within this system, it guarantees even unfavorable viewpoints a fair perspective which helps to support balance in relation to justice. Although it may appear not as democratic, having these judges appointed helps to avoid choices being made from recent public opinion and make proper decisions for the future.

1. Within P. Williams’ essay conveys their message about a war with the focus on terror focusing on new dangers rather than revolving around just the physical destruction that traditional war causes. It differentiates itself from traditional war through a different perspective through not just targeting different territories or military resources, but through a focus on the civilian population and the country’s infrastructure. In traditional warfare, it’s common to have two oppositions facing direct combat with one another with established enemies on each side. In contrast to that traditional warfare, it focuses on factors that are not directly related to the conflict. They tend to gravitate towards unconventional methods to take the advantage of the opposition making the definition of victory unclear and what they need to attack. It makes gathering intelligence and surveillance more valuable, but it leads to further discussion around security being over civil liberties.  

2. The “Roving Wiretaps” of the patriot act causes great concern in terms of violating the bill of rights through the fourth amendment which protects individuals from searches that are unreasonable and seizures. This provision helps the authorities to administer surveillance to wherever they deem it’s appropriate across multiple electronic devices. This can span to an individual’s cellphone to their personal computer all under a single tap to avoid needing multiple court orders to complete this task. While people that support the Roving Wiretaps argue that it’s required to have this flexibility when they have criminals that are extremely familiar with technology, it can lead to a leak of information for those unassociated with the person they are tracking. Using this kind of surveillance goes against the principles in the fourth amendment which protects individual rights. 

3. The “sneak and peek” warrants are described to be warrants that allow law enforcement to complete searches of individuals without notifying the person they are going after. This warrant can also contradict the protections that the fourth amendment provides for the individual. This provision can allow for law enforcement to delay informing the individual about their search which can go against what is considered legal in that investigation. Critics do argue about this practice potentially extending beyond terror and espionage. Through allowing the normalization of these operations, these sneak and peek warrants can raise awareness about the potential abuse that these warrants can cause towards protections that the constitution provides for individuals.

1. The Establishment Clause is described to be a fundamental component of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The purpose that this clause serves is to protect the potential establishment of a new religion by the government or if they will start showing bias towards a specific religion. It epitomizes the principles of separation of church and state, ensuring that the people residing in the country are able to practice whichever religion that they so choose without government influence. 

As a way to understand The Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court introduced the creation of The Lemon Test in the case Lemon V. Kurtzman in 1971. Within this test, there are 3 separate parts that help decide if a government official action or law will break the Establishment Clause. The first part of this test shows that there must be a neutral purpose, meaning, it needs to have a legitimate purpose that is not related to religion. The second requirement that it needs to meet is if it advances or constrains religion displaying if the action has any religious bias. The last requirement that is apart of the Lemon Test is through Excessive Entanglement. This requirement means that this should not lead to greater involvement with religion through any means. This involvement can include interactions between government institutions and any religious organizations. If any of these criteria aren’t met, it would be perceived as unconstitutional based on the Establishment Clause. Using the Lemon Test has allowed for greater ability to evaluate differing policies and educational practices involving religion. It helps to guide the government down a more neutral path without favoring any religion. 

2. The burning of the U.S. flag is protected by the first amendment due to it being an attack of symbolic speech. This protection of the U.S. flag was incorporated during the Supreme Court Case of Texas V. Johnson in 1989. The case consisted of Gregory Lee Johnson using the burning of the American flag as a demonstration to display the displeasure he felt towards the policies of the Reagan Administration. He was later arrested for this action under a texas law involving the desecration of the flag. After being arrested, he later appealed his conviction and the Supreme Court had ruled his decision of burning the U.S. flag to 5-4. The reasoning behind this choice was because it was seen as a form of expression rather than blatant hatred towards the country. The court had also pointed out that the first amendment had protected nonverbal actions to convey a specific message as well. It was explained that the government is not able to hinder their ability of speech because their opinions were unfavorable. By allowing that reasoning to bypass that kind of speech, it would end up going against the principles that the first amendment stands for. 

3. If someone says that they are “taking the fifth,” it means that they are calling upon their fifth amendment right to protect themselves from self-incrimination. The creation of the fifth amendment was to help individuals avoid the possibility of answering questions that could lead to them being implicated in criminal activity that they had no way of being aware of. They are using their right to not answer questions that can lead to their criminal prosecution. Taking the fifth is mainly used in legal contexts such as interrogations by the police or through congressional hearings displaying their protection by the constitution to avoid leaking information that is detrimental to their prosecution.

1. Within a federal system such as the United States, the citizens’ roles can vary and engage in both national and state governments through being able to vote in elections that affect them on both levels. Within a confederation, the citizens are mainly supposed to interact with or in regional governments considering that most power will reside in that since the central authority is weaker. In a unitary system, the central government holds the primary power and citizens have to deal with the consequences of that. Local governments if they do exist are given limited autonomy to do as they please. 

2. The division of power in federal systems particularly refers to the split authority between the national level and state level. Within these kinds of systems, there are certain responsibilities given to each government such as handling defense against the nation, education, law enforcement, etc. Having this delegation of responsibilities like this ensures that there are no imbalances of power like one branch of government having any significant power over another.

3. The federal government was able to shape the actions of state and local governments through specifically funding and adding additional policies/guidelines to control the situation. Federal agencies, specifically the CDC had issued health guidelines for the public to follow to avoid any contact with the virus. New York had also used mask mandates and social distancing in recommendation to these federal guidelines as it tried to contain and repress the virus.

1. The main thing that reminds me about the concept of “faction” is of social class divisions. This can be seen through the use of factions. As the definition of a faction is described to be groups driven by specific interests that may conflict with the broader community, social classes are more represented through distinct groups that carry different interests based on economic status. The conflict that may occur between factions, like that between classes, derives from differing economic positions, which may lead to competing interests and possible conflicts to happen. Factions are known as groups united by passion or interest adverse to others, much like how classes operate with their own economic motives.

2. According to Federalist #10, the source of wealth through private property lies in the faculties (abilities and talents) of individuals. Some people possess certain faculties (skills) or capabilities that allow them to have the ability to acquire wealth, while others lack these faculties and remain poor. This diversity in an individual’s abilities can explain why some are able to own property while others do not. Madison argues that these economic divisions are apart of this society due to those with differing abilities. 

3. I personally disagree with this analysis of the differences between wealth and poverty. It suggests that the difference in a person’s wealth is their own inherent abilities to generate said wealth. That viewpoint glosses over many other factors that can contribute to economic inequality through social networks, education, or inherited wealth to name a few. Individual talent and ability are definitely factors in being able to find success, there are plenty of other factors that go into it. Many people can have that drive to succeed in life, but without the proper resources to give them that first step, they will remain in that same social class. It would be more fair to consider both individual effort and systemic barriers that cause those to not achieve their true potential. 

4. The core mission, or “first object,” of the U.S. government, according to Madison, is the priority of protection for the diverse faculties that help private property ownership.  This means that the government’s role in all of this is to guard property rights and to ensure that individuals can gain wealth in accordance to their own ability. Madison’s framing reflects the priorities of the wealthy class in 1787, who saw the government’s main function as safeguarding their economic interests, which contrasts with modern ideas about governmental responsibility.

5. I personally do not surprising that Federalist #10 favors a Republican (representative) form of government over pure democracy. Madison and the other framers of the constitution had their minds on if pure democracy would cause potential threats to the wealthy minority and allow the majority (the poor) to impose their will on them. By supporting a representative government, Madison had believed that with elected officials, he could be able to provide a buffer against the majority. This choice reflects the class dynamics of the time, where the wealthy feared the power of the masses that had the potential to disrupt their economic status.

1. Which social class wrote the Constitution, and which class was excluded?

The Constitution was mainly written by the wealthy elite of an extremely early American society which had included landowners, merchants, bankers, and other affluent individuals. These men had significant property holdings and economic interests to protect. According to Michael Parenti, the delegates were wealthy, with their goal being to establish a strong central government to protect that wealth through it’s financial interests. Beard also highlights that some large groups were deprived of the ability to vote, including slaves, women, indentured servants, and propertyless men. who were excluded from the political process due to strict voting qualifications. 

2. Was the social class structure of early U.S. society the same as today?

I would personally say that the social class structure of early U.S. society differs at quite a large margin from today’s society. In the 18th century,  power was concentrated in the hands of the wealthy minority, with legal barriers that prevented the majority of the population which included the poor, women, slaves, and non-property owners from participating in the political process. Today, while economic inequality persists, those legal barriers such as property ownership requirements for voting have been abolished, and the political system is more open to participation by all citizens​.

3. Why were the framers of the Constitution afraid of democracy?

The reasoning as to why the framers had feared democracy was because they associated it with the potential for the majority (the propertyless classes) to disrupt the interests that the wealthy minority had. They wanted to stay comfortable and not risk anything happening to their wealth. The framers were concerned about “the leveling impulses” of the majority, which could challenge the existing property distribution. Both Madison and Hamilton expressed concerns that a democratic government would not be able to protect the property rights of the affluent​ individuals in their society. The fear of popular uprisings, such as Shays’ Rebellion, further emphasized the need for a system that would maintain control over the masses​.

1. I believe that the statistic on wealth inequality that surprised me the most upon reading 5.2 was the fact that 90% of Americans have little to no net assets to their names. The reason why this stood out to me so much was that despite there being families with many different backgrounds, most of them do not have a financial safety net for emergencies. That lack of financial security for a large majority of Americans displays the hidden struggles of being forced to live paycheck to paycheck. It highlights the distribution in wealth and how imbalanced it all is. Based on these statistics, only a small fraction of the country is capable of having the financial means to face the economic challenges that may face them in the future. It brings a possible discussion about the potential for economic stability and how realistic it is for the average American. 
2. Living in a society with extreme wealth inequalities can have implications that affect many aspects of daily life and the functioning of society. One of the most significant implications include reduced Social Mobility. Wealth inequality creates economic barriers, making it difficult for people in lower-income brackets to climb the economic ladder. Being able to acquire access to quality education, healthcare, and job opportunities is often limited to those with financial means, displaying cycles of poverty and limiting social mobility. The increased economic instability can cause the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few leads to economic instability because the majority of people lack the purchasing power to sustain economic growth. The super-rich can have the ability to change certain policies in ways that protect and enhance their interests, such as influencing tax laws favoring the wealthy often at the expense of the broader public.