Module 14.1

1.Dr. Gilmore made a point, arguing that capitalism will not stop being racial capitalism even if all white people were removed from the story (0:05:19). that defines the entire system. I interpret this to mean that the practices of racism, the way people are treated differently, who gets exploited, and who gets to own things (0:02:49) were built into capitalism right from the beginning; it’s an inherited structure. Because of this, the system absolutely requires inequality to function. Whiteness, then, isn’t the cause of racism in this framework, but the result of being on the side of the benefit in this structural relation.

2. Dr. Gilmore makes a powerful point: the criminal justice system and the Prison Industrial Complex (PIC) aren’t broken they are actually working exactly as designed by actively creating the category of the “criminal person.” I find this structural argument so clear when I think about how states, like California, have historically chosen to pour money into building more jails and prisons instead of funding new college campuses. That political choice shows control is prioritized over education or giving people a real chance. Gilmore argues this is necessary because the PIC is a massive economic system designed to concentrate wealth for powerful elites, meaning it requires a guaranteed “steady stream of criminals” to sustain its growth. The system expands criminalization and hands out harsher sentences to keep that stream flowing.

I agree with Dr. Gilmore, especially on the post release reality. By prioritizing the continuous construction of prisons over funding positive institutions like educational, community, or after school programs the state ensures that released inmates return to communities surrounded by systems of control, not support. They are actively blocked from stability; the “criminal” label prevents them from securing legitimate work and housing. This deliberate vulnerability forces people right back into the control apparatus, cementing their identity as the perpetually “criminal person”. It is compelling because it shows the whole system is engineered for control and perpetuity, not genuine justice or rehabilitation.

3. I think the idea of a liberation struggle is driven by communities that are already distressed, places that look less like safe neighborhoods and more like shelters built just for survival. Dr. Gilmore argues this struggle must be a creative, constant effort to build something totally new, moving past just playing defense. The first crucial step is getting conscious: people have to “come to consciousness” by studying the policies and history that created their vulnerability. The “pop up university” the Amadora community created to study colonialism is a perfect example of this. It gives people better understanding and potential opportunities for change, but it’s still not a guaranteed success because the systemic forces they are fighting are so powerful.

Module 12.1: Sex Class Action

The Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes came down to one crucial legal requirement for group lawsuits called commonality.

Commonality is the rule that says everyone in a large group lawsuit must have suffered the same exact injury for the same exact reason. If the group can’t prove a single, shared cause harmed everyone, they can’t sue together.

In the decision with Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the lawsuit was decertified. The courts used the lack of commonality as its decision, saying there wasn’t enough evidence found in all the women’s claims across Wal-Mart’s thousands of franchised stores.

The women’s lawsuit argued that they were all harmed by Wal-Mart’s gender bias: they were not being paid the same as the men and were not receiving promotions.

The problem, according to the Court, was the reason for the harm. When it turned out each store had managers making the pay and promotion decisions, the Court argued it was not a written law agreement by the CEO to pay less.

Because there was no single, company-wide rule that forced discrimination, the Court decided the injuries were caused by thousands of individual managers making separate decisions. Therefore, the women failed the commonality test and could not sue as one group.

This ruling essentially made it much harder to sue big companies when the discrimination is widespread but happens through local managers’ personal choices.

Module 11.1

1. I feel that the court system is uniquely and decisively better equipped than the elected branches to protect individual rights primarily because of judicial independence. This independence is a foundational element of the judiciary, guaranteed by Article III of the Constitution through life tenure for federal judges and the inability to reduce their salaries while they hold office.

This structure completely insulates judges from the immediate pressures of politics and public opinion. Members of Congress and the President must prioritize the majority will to secure re-election, which can inadvertently lead them to pass laws that violate the rights of minority groups or individuals. Judges, however, are free to focus exclusively on the Rule of Law and the Constitution, even if that means making an unpopular decision. This focus allows the courts to serve as the ultimate check on both state and federal action, often through the power of judicial review.

An example of this is the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Even though state prosecutors and police (who are politically accountable) had secured a conviction based on a confession, the Supreme Court stepped in. They recognized that the individual’s Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination had been violated because he wasn’t warned of his rights. The Court’s ruling protected one individual’s constitutional rights against the actions of the state and established a broad protection, the Miranda warnings, for all individuals going forward. This really highlights how the judiciary can prioritize the law and the rights of a single person over the political interests of elected officials who might prefer a quick conviction.

2. I agree with the statement that the Supreme Court is structurally anti democratic. Federal judges and justices are not chosen by the people but are appointed for life, creating what is known as the Counter Majoritarian Dilemma, the power of nine unelected individuals to overrule the laws passed by elected representatives.

However, this design is not an accident; it’s an intentional feature created by the Founders to safeguard the fundamental principles of the republic. The primary reason federal judges are appointed for life, rather than elected, is to allow them to function as an independent check on the majority. As James Madison warned in Federalist 10, in any democracy or republic, there is a constant danger that a powerful “faction,” which we now identify as the majority or a dominant political group, will use its numbers to oppress or violate the rights of others.

The judiciary’s life tenure insulates them from the political passion of the moment, ensuring they can protect constitutional rights, like free speech, due process, or equality, even when the public and the elected branches want those rights curtailed. They are meant to be the dedicated custodians of the Constitution, prioritizing the Rule of Law over popular opinion or the narrow interests of a politically dominant social class. In this unique way, the anti democratic nature of the Supreme Court is actually essential for upholding the true democratic value of individual liberty.

1. I think Williams argues that the War on Terror is new because it’s not against a traditional country; it’s against decentralized networks. The biggest difference is that the conflict became domestic, not just foreign. This is why the Patriot Act came out: it was an emergency legal tool to switch our focus to preemption, meaning we needed broad power to gather intelligence inside the U.S. to stop hidden plots before they happened. The government essentially blurred the line between police work and spying.

2. I believe Roving Wiretaps violate the Fourth Amendment because they break the rule of particularity. A warrant is supposed to name a specific place or device. These wiretaps target a person, letting the government tap any phone or device they use without getting a new warrant each time. I think that’s too broad and easily scoops up innocent people’s communications.

3. “Sneak and Peek” Warrants
I think “Sneak and Peek” warrants definitely violate the Fourth Amendment because they deny my right to notice. This Patriot Act provision lets police secretly enter a home or office, search it, and not tell the owner until much later. The problem is, without immediate notice, I can’t properly challenge the legality of the search, and even worse, I can’t confirm what the police found or if the evidence was even there before the search. It creates a major opening where a person could argue the evidence was planted, which seriously undermines the fairness of the legal process

Federalism and Governance

1. The primary differences in the role of citizens across these systems depend on where the government’s power is located. The Unitary System, which is like modern France, is the most straightforward: all the power is held by the national government, and citizens focus their influence primarily on electing those national leaders. The Confederation presents the opposite, and in my opinion, the most confusing for the citizen. I think of the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation—the people elected a government, but what many didn’t realize was that the states truly held the final say. The national government was so weak that it was essentially paralyzed, meaning the citizens’ ultimate power belonged almost entirely to the state governments, and the central government needed the state’s consent to act. The Federal System, which is the current U.S. model, strikes a balance by giving citizens a unique role at two levels: we elect representatives at both the national federal level and the state level, ensuring we can hold both spheres of government accountable at the same time.

2. I understand the division of power primarily through the Horizontal Division, which is also known as the Separation of Powers. This system prevents concentrated authority by distributing national power among three distinct branches: the Legislative branch makes laws, the Executive branch administers laws, and the Judicial branch interprets laws. This structure relies on Checks and Balances to function correctly. The government shutdown, like the one that began on October 1, 2025, powerfully illustrates the friction created by this system. When the Legislative Branch fails to pass the necessary appropriations to fund government operations, it creates an immediate crisis for the Executive Branch, which is forced to have “essential” federal workers keep working without pay. This deadlock shows how the system, designed to prevent tyranny, can result in real-world consequences when the branches completely freeze up because they fail to agree. However, mandatory spending for programs like Social Security continues, showing that some Executive functions are intentionally insulated from this annual conflict.

3. The federal government mainly shapes state and local actions through financial control, using fiscal tools to provide incentives or apply pressure a dynamic called coercive federalism. This influence was pervasive in New York State during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Influence through Incentives -Federal Grants: The core mechanism was money used as a massive incentive. The federal government passed huge laws like the CARES Act and ARPA that offered New York State billions in federal grants. Since New York couldn’t afford critical services like setting up testing and vaccination sites, they took the cash payment, but this meant agreeing to follow the rules that came with it. This is how the federal government pushed states to adopt national health goals.
• Influence through Direct Mandates-Coercion: The federal government’s coercive power was most evident through direct mandates. This went far beyond simple guidance, forcing many people to be vaccinated or lose their jobs, despite the vaccine being developed so quickly. This mandatory enforcement is a perfect example of coercive federalism, where the federal government stretched its authority over state and local actions. The controversy is even clearer today; the President has since stated the mandates weren’t necessary and didn’t prevent catching COVID, and there are now efforts to erase the vaccination records of those who complied. This recent turn of events underscores just how much power the federal government exerted over individuals through its authority to set standards during a national crisis.

The Constitution

1. The Class that Wrote the Constitution: This was the wealthy (upper) class. This group included landowners and a financial elite consisting of merchants, bankers, shippers, and holders of public securities. The Difference: Their class interest was in protecting property and promoting financial stability through a strong central government that could regulate commerce, establish a reliable currency, and pay off public debt (which they largely held with high interest rates from 24-40%). The Class that was Excluded was the lower class, which included farmers (especially small, indebted ones), as well as the propertyless working mass, indentured servants, slaves, and women. Lower class was excluded primarily because most members did not own enough property to vote under state laws and thus had no voice in the ratification process during the American Revolution.
   
2. The social class structure of the early United States society is both similar to and different from ours today. One key similarity is the enduring presence of a wealthy elite at the top, but the primary way your status is defined has changed. In the late 1700s, the dominant factor was property ownership, which granted political rights and power. In today’s world, social class is largely defined by our income, education, and work ethic. The biggest difference is political access: voting in the late 1700s was a perk reserved for a small percentage of the population, often requiring you to be a wealthy white male who owned large tracts of land. Verses today, as long as you are a U.S. citizen and the age of 18 years or older, you have the universal right to vote.
   
3. The people who wrote the Constitution were afraid of democracy because they feared it would allow the less fortunate to have a voice for equal rights, directly threatening the economic interests of the wealthy class. This fear was rooted in the idea that if the propertyless majority gained political power, they would vote to redistribute the wealth. Specifically, they worried that the people would enact laws so that if borrowers needed a loan, debt interest rates would not be significantly high, hurting the profits of the moneyed class. Furthermore, they feared the populace would make it impossible for them to afford their property or farm tax payments. By creating a strong, central government, they ensured that the economic policy would be insulated from popular influence, so the state would have less of a say-so in economic policy, ensuring the protection of property rights over the demands of the indebted and non-propertied masses.

1. Based on the readings there were subjective approaches where people placed themselves into socioeconomic categories. I have noticed how people placed themselves based on a certain class which required comparison to income, education and location where they are from. Those who have had a college degree considered themselves in the middle class, based on what their requirements they have reached. Someone like myself is also subjective to the class brackets where are identified by, though I am currently working on my degree, having been in my career field over 15 years I would of previously considered being middle class. When reviewing all the details and the chart status and taking into count the cost of living in New York, I changed my aspect to just working.

2. The subway station close to be are the D and 4 being they are only 2 blocks apart. The social class considered for my neighborhood is median. (I received this data from a google search being the site was down) The statis could be accurate as the neighborhood has been gentrified the last couple of years. Rent prices are gone up and the local supermarkets that catered to the area now has Manhattan city prices.

3. Unfortunately, i was unable to read 4.2 due to the site being down.

If i had to provide an idea of change in social classes in NYC, the wages does not aligned with the cost of living. Therefore, if you are a working class you are mostly considered lower class. If you are born in capitalist you will fall into the upper class dynamics.

1. Repressive State Apparatus is a law/rule which comes with fear through violence  or force. Althusser calls it repressive because its a control behavior with bodily force to one. An example is if government ruling are not followed people can face consequences by being place in prison or if crimes are happening where the police is unable to control the army then steps in.

2. Ideological State Apparatues is an institution of attending school, going to work, and having to be there for hours at  time. You learn behavior such as being obedient  and following rules. The same rules apply among family, with being respectful to your elders.

3. The difference between RSA and ISA is accepting authority, listen to your parents and teachers where you are rewarded with good grades. While RSA if you are disruptive in school/class you can be (force) removed from class by security, depending on how server your behavior is, possibly imprisonment.

4. My example of repressive in Ideology is a song by Tupac Shakur “Changes” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXvBjCO19QY

At 0:27, Tupac expresses how if he committed a robbery, the police could potentially kill a Black man and be rewarded as a hero. The government would view this situation as one less individual they have to provide support for, whether through food or a prison stay. The song goes into further depth, explaining how even when you are completely innocent, you may still face harassment from the police due to racism and your identity. At 3:18, Tupac states, “Instead of a war on poverty, they got a war on drugs,” which provides police with a reason to harass him even though he states he’s never committed a crime that he didn’t have to, its because of where he is from “ghetto” he is always a target. The government system seems to remind the same over the years.

1. Ideology is a political system split up in different segments beliefs, values ideas and opinions.  It explains how society is structured. Such as social trends, political movement, or sets of beliefs one grew up believing because it’s what we were taught growing up. As we became older, we probably have a different outlook.

For example: I was born a Christian, went to church every Sunday as a child and was taught to learn bible scriptures and other religious I should not follow. Being this was taught at home with my parents, as I got older and learned the word of my own, I have different perspectives and  began to ask myself questions such-as: “why must I be a Christian because that is what my household was? ““Do I really believe the word in the bible being that it was man written?” How do I know if there really is a higher power?” I no longer judge other religious because they still believe in one God, as me, they just pray different and attended their form of churches, mosque, or temples.

Whereas the government system has etiquette with the United states flag code stands for structure of the nations history and ideas which has to be followed.

2. How I understand the difference between conservative and liberal ideology in US politics is that they are two different parties with different views and beliefs. Conservatives appear to be a threat to social society where they control more of people’s personal lives and beliefs, whereas liberals believe in more freedom and equality for individuals. The difference that divides the two is that liberals focus on fairness and allow people to marry whom they choose and make their own choices regarding their bodies. In contrast, conservatives focus on authority with laws we must follow.

3.  I understand Althusser’s definition of ideology is that it creates “fear,” with institutions like the police, courts, and prisons in place to attempt to keep people in line. He even uses a Bible scripture to explain how this fear is implanted. When we vote for different parties, we may feel we have a choice, but ultimately, we as a people are participating in a behavior that helps us fit into society. It’s more than just voting; it’s also the subtle coercion of having to be at work or in school for hours at a time with rules to follow. If you miss work or don’t follow the rules, there will be a disciplinary action, which is another form of control.