Ruth Gilmore talks about how capitalism, race, and the criminal justice system work together, affecting people and society. She explains that capitalism often benefits white people while hurting Black, Indigenous, and other people of color. Whiteness isn’t just about being white—it’s about having power and money. This system looks down on BIPOC lives to keep its economic advantages.

Gilmore criticizes the prison system, saying it unfairly labels people as “criminals” and makes social inequalities worse. Many people in the justice system come from poor communities and often get arrested for small issues because of unfair treatment. Being labeled a “criminal” makes it hard for them to fit back into society and improve their lives. The focus on punishment instead of helping people leads to repeat offenses, keeping them stuck in cycles of poverty and exclusion.

She believes in a movement for freedom that stands against systems that exploit people, like racial capitalism and for-profit prisons. This movement calls for changing how society works and pushing for better treatment of everyone.

In the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case, the Supreme Court denied the magnificence movement primarily because the plaintiffs did not meet the commonality requirement. The Court held that the plaintiff’s claims have been too numerous and individualized to continue as a magnificence, mainly given the decentralized nature of Wal-Mart policies. This ruling bolstered the significance of demonstrating that there was no unusual place in prison or genuine problems while searching for magnificence certification, and it drastically impacted destiny magnificence-movement lawsuits, particularly those geared toward complex, large, complicated companies.

The courtroom docket gadget is more potent at shielding personal rights than elected branches of the presidency because courts are unbiased and no longer inspired by political pressures or famous demands. An instance is the Brown v. Board of Education case, wherein the Supreme Court dominated racial segregation in public faculties regardless of competition from elected officials. The Supreme Court’s independence allows it to prioritize personal rights over most hobbies or influential groups.

The Supreme Court is considered “anti-democratic” because justices are appointed, now no longer elected, and serve for life. Critics argue this loss of direct responsibility to the electorate needs to be revised. Still, the framers of the Constitution designed the judiciary in this manner to shield a person’s rights and save the tyranny of the bulk. The judiciary’s independence from political pressures guarantees selections are primarily based totally on regulation and the Constitution in preference to public opinion or political expediency.

While appointing judges may also appear undemocratic, it was meant to save you selections inspired by means of political recognition or partisanship. The loss of direct responsibility to the electorate additionally examines the electricity of the legislature and government branches, keeping the stability of electricity. In conclusion, the courtroom docket gadget’s potential to perform independently and shield against the tyranny of the bulk aligns with the framers’ imagination and prescient of a gadget that safeguards personal liberties and forestalls excesses of famous democracy.

The “struggle on terror” is a unique combat that is exceptional from ordinary wars. In ordinary wars, international locations combat each other; however, in the struggle against terror, businesses like Al-Qaeda and ISIS aren’t tied to any country. These people can get assistance from anyone worldwide, making it easier to forestall them with ordinary armies. The combat against terror is going past simply one country, so international locations want to paint collectively and percentage statistics to be safe. There are also vital guidelines regarding how to deal with humans and what may be complex in this sort of combat. Technology, like cameras and computers, is frequently used to search for terrible guys. Some humans fear that specific laws, such as the USA PATRIOT Act, could damage the guidelines that shield our rights, including proper privacy and an honest trial.

The Establishment Clause is a part of the First Amendment that says the government can’t favor one religion over another or create an official religion. To check if a law breaks this rule, judges use something called the “Lemon Test,” which has three parts:

1. The law must have a valid reason that isn’t related to religion.
2. It can’t mostly help or harm a religion.
3. It shouldn’t mix too much with religious groups.
   A law is only okay if it meets all three parts.

Burning the American flag is allowed because of the First Amendment. This amendment protects people’s right to express themselves, even if it means burning a flag. The Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the U.S., has said that burning a flag shows what someone thinks and feels, and that counts as free speech.

When someone says, “I’m Taking the Fifth,” it means they choose not to answer questions in a legal case. This helps them avoid saying something that could get them into trouble and makes sure they get a fair treatment.

In specific styles of government, the jobs of residents change. In a federal system, the country’s broad authorities and smaller nation governments proportion electricity, meaning residents may have a say in each level. In a confederation, the maximum amount of electricity is held with the aid of the states, so residents, on the whole, get worried on the national level. In a unitary system, the country-wide authorities have all the electricity, and residents best affect neighborhood authorities’ decisions. Federal structures ensure stability among the country-wide and national governments, encouraging human beings to be lively. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal authorities prompted what states and neighborhood regions should do, like giving suggestions and money and assisting with vaccines. For example, New York ought to make its rules. However, it has become tormented by federal suggestions and support, displaying how federal and national governments paint together, especially in emergencies.

A long term ago, the policies for the way our United States must work, referred to as the Constitution, had been made mainly via way of means of wealthy humans. These blanketed rich farmers, businesspeople, and knowledgeable folks who desired to hold their cash and power. Many different humans, like terrible farmers, workers, and enslaved individuals, didn’t get to assist in making those policies, which suggests that they no longer body had an honest say. Back then, humans had been separated into extraordinary training primarily based on how much cash they had, what they owned, and what kind of they learned. Even today, there are nonetheless widespread variations among rich and working-elegance humans.

The people who created the Constitution were concerned about letting everybody vote without delay because they thought it’d want explanations and problems. They believed that individuals with little training or cash could make choices that would not be desirable for folks who had been more prosperous and knowledgeable. To assist with this, they installed matters like the Electoral College and the Senate, which had been supposed to ensure that the greater prosperous and knowledgeable humans had a massive say in how the United States became run.

Federalist #10 discusses the concept of “faction” and its role in governance. It identifies private property as a source of wealth, arguing that wealth is distributed unequally due to diversity in the faculties of men. Madison’s explanation of wealth and poverty is compelling, as it recognizes the role of individual talents and abilities but can be criticized for downplaying systemic issues like inequality in access to education, resources, and opportunities.

Madison’s core mission of the US government is to protect the rights of property, aligning with the interests of the upper class. This may seem at odds with contemporary views on government, which often prioritize broader social welfare, equity, and democracy.

Federalist #10 supports a Republican form of government over pure democracy, as Madison and other framers were concerned that direct democracy could lead to tyranny of the majority. They sought to create a government that would stabilize and maintain the interests of the upper classes while limiting the influence of those they deemed less capable or informed. Their support for a representative system highlights their desire to balance public participation with the necessity of protecting property and wealth.

In the U. S. , the top 1% of households hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, showcasing extreme wealth inequality. This concentration of economic power highlights disparities in opportunity and social mobility. It raises concerns about fairness, justice, and the democratic system’s health. The inequality challenges equal opportunity ideals and emphasizes the necessity for policies addressing systemic barriers to wealth distribution, illustrating how a small elite can influence economic policies to the detriment of the majority.

Living in a society with substantial wealth inequalities can cause decreased social mobility, political influence, social fragmentation, and fitness disparities. Wealth attention hinders upward mobility, limits democratic participation, creates divisions, and correlates with fitness disparities. In ordinary life, those dynamics are glaring in schooling disparities, housing challenges, and unequal get entry to to offerings like healthcare. Wealthier regions frequently have better-funded schools, even as growing housing prices can displace lower-profits households via gentrification. Individuals with better earning have get entry to to non-public healthcare, even as lower-profits people depend on underfunded public offerings. These implications of wealth inequality form the reviews of people and communities, highlighting the want for a extra equitable society.