1. Ruth Gilmore says that capitalism will stop being racial capitalism, when all the white people disappear from the story. What’s the connection between “whiteness” and racism, do you think?

Gilmore said, ‘capitalism will end racial capitalism when the white people vanish from the story’  It implies that ‘whiteness’ and racial capitalism are linked by historical exploitation and inequality. Capitalist civilizations favor whiteness as a sign of advantage, maintaining racial hierarchies. Racial capitalism fosters inequality via labor exploitation and discrimination. This suggests that deconstructing racial capitalism requires attacking white privilege rather than eliminating white people.

2.Gilmore makes the point that criminals are actually being created by the criminal justice and prison system (she says “the category of ‘criminal person’ can be perpetuated”). According to Gilmore, how does that happen, how does the prison system create new “criminals“? Do you agree with her view?

The criminal justice and prison system creates criminals and targets certain populations, Gilmore says. Gilmore calls the new criminals’ victims ‘criminal persons’.  Low-income, minority, handicapped, etc. persons are usually marginalized. The criminal justice and prison system perpetuates poverty, violence, and criminality by disproportionately targeting and incarcerating these communities. I agreed with her point of view because if you actually look back things like this still happens now a days, where people are being targeted by living in a certain areas.

3. Describe how your understand what Prof. Gilmore – in the last part of her video – calls “liberation struggle”?

In the last part of her video Ruth Gilmore explained and describes  “liberation struggle” as joint efforts to end oppressive regimes and promote social justice and emancipation for underprivileged communities. This strategy stresses intersectional and collaborative attempts to accomplish fundamental social change by recognizing the connections between racism, capitalism, and imperialism. Through action, organizing, and resistance, marginalized populations challenge the existing quo, advocate for structural improvements, and assert their rights.

The supreme court decision in the class-action lawsuit Wal-Mart et al v Dukes et al, in which 1.5 million female Wal-Mart workers claimed gender discrimination in pay and promotion by Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court ruled that their case would not go forward because the plaintiffs did not meet the technical legal requirement of commonality. Commonality means ‘a quality or condition shared by individual instances of the same thing’; or someone that you share an interest or experience with. The Supreme Court’s decision was that the plaintiffs did not have evidence to meet the prerequisite of commonality that would have been necessary to file a class action. The Supreme Court would later state that this was because Wal-Mart’s ‘employment decisions – made individually by managers in the company’s stores – are negligibly affected by the corporate bureaucracy’. As a result of this decision, the women involved in this case would not be able to handle their legal claims collectively.

1.    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; or the Mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly)? Give an example to illustrate your argument.

Since the court system is bound by its role to interpret and defend the law, not arbitrate political considerations or public opinion, it is often better equipped to protect individual rights than the elected arms of government. The judiciary’s protection of foundational rights, such as free expression, is often an example of this. Even when the speech in question might be controversial or unpopular, the court system (especially the Supreme Court) has proven itself more willing to uphold First Amendment protections than elected bodies that might succumb to public pressure or political exigency to restrict speech. Governmen and the general public might have wishes to abridge speech, but the Supreme Court decided not to in Texas v Johnson (1989) and the Oklahoma City bombing defendant’s favour in Brandenburg v Ohio (1969).

2.    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.)

The concerns of the Founding Fathers over majority tyranny and the necessity for a balance of governmental powers are the foundation for the nomination of federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court. By shielding judges from political pressure, this system makes sure that legal knowledge, not popular opinion, drives decision-making. The dangers of majority rule were highlighted in Federalist #10, which led to the creation of a court with the power to check other parts of government. This system protects individual rights and the rule of law, despite the opinion held by some that it is undemocratic. A fair and efficient legal system is facilitated by judges, who are frequently selected for their legal expertise and play a critical role in the unbiased interpretation and application of the law.

1. 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?

       P. Williams emphasizes the ways in which the war on terror is conducted differently from conventional warfare while highlighting the ways in which it is distinct from it. It differs from conventional warfare in part because of its emphasis on using technology and intelligence to deter future attacks. The use of terrorism by non-state entities is another characteristic.

2. 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” clause of the Patriot Act raises questions regarding possible Fourth Amendment violations. Since the act does not need particular warrants for specific individuals or locations, it appears that the broad monitoring permitted by the act violates this provision, which protects against arbitrary searches and seizures.

3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

allows them to search you before notifying you that they are doing so. This is usually only used in situations when alerting the parties may compromise the investigation in any manner.

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

The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment requires the government to refrain from infringing upon a citizen’s right to be of whatever religion they want, and not supporting any one religion over another. The government is essentially forbidden from infringing upon the religious rights of those who prefer not to practise any religion as well as those who want to practise one of the nearly universal faiths endorsed by every American president known to history. What does this have to do with something as mundane and uncontroversial as a static display of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of a city hall? The lemon test asks three questions. First, did the law have a legitimate non-religious purpose? This is the secular purpose question. Second, does the law advance religion too much? This is the excessive entanglement question. And third, is government and religion too intertwined in the law? This is the secondary effect question.

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

The Salute to the Flag Case decided in 1989 by the supreme court of the United States ruled that under the first Amendment to the Constitution: ‘Burning the flag is, therefore, a form of expression within the meaning of the first amendment.’ And since our constitution guarantees the right of free expression, flag burning is protected under the first amendment to the Constitution. As the court said that the social fabric is in any manner assailed and undermined by this conduct, it must be made to inure to the benefit or health and strength of the whole body politic … The flag-burning decision is bookended by the heading ‘FREE SPEECH’, as if its ruling could not be more clear. Even if flag burning was considered to be purely offensive and would weaken a body politic, it would still count under the Constitution’s ‘On balance, freedom of speech is more important than … whatever’ clause.

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

If someone says: ‘I’ll take the Fifth,’ the Fifth that he has in mind is the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. He refuses to answer questions in court or another process because he aims to put his best foot forward. Taking the Fifth was a way of not saying anything that would put him in a bad light, since, according to that Fifth Amendment, no one can be compelled ‘to be a witness against himself’

1. Describe the primary differences in the role of citizens in government, among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems.
2. Briefly explain how you understand the system of division of power.
3. 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.

1. The major distinctions in the function of citizens in government between the federal government system، cooperation and a unitary system، are that in a federal system of government، citizens have direct participation in both national and subnational government، with a clear delineation of responsibilities. In a federal government system as seen in the US، the citizens have direct access to both the national Government as well as to the state Government.In a federation، the citizens vote for national as well as the state elections thus influencing the policy at both the levels. In a confederation، citizens primarily interact with the regional levels without allotting much importance to the central power. In a unitary system، citizens interact with the central Government only. The central Government is the highest sovereign authority، with a power distribution to the lower levels as needed.

2. Thirdly, the division of powers system is apparently about the distribution of power between different levels of government, such as national, regional and local governments.These are the systems established to avoid the concentration of power. Generally, this division of power system is usually stipulated in the Constitution or a legal system. It explains the responsibility of each level of government and the jurisdiction in which they have authority. For example, the responsibility of the federal government concerns the whole country, while the state government is only responsible for issues relevant to each state.Within the division of power system, the division of power is created primarily to prevent any one level of government from acquiring excessive power.

3.Thus, during COVID-19, when the federal government sent states funding to pay for the vaccine, declared COVID a national emergency, established or rescinded regulations, Federal action led the actions of states and localities through funding, through setting the policy agenda as an existential threat, though regulations limiting population density to curb the virus, through limiting travel to the State, through funding that ensured states could provide vaccinations and COVID testing.

1. The word fractions reminds me of interest groups. Classes can be viewed as groups with different ways of representing themselves through their interests or ideologies.

2. On Federalist #10, James Madison argues that the accumulation of wealth and private property can also be driving forces in the formation of groups. He also talks about being able to form groups, saying that those with similar economic status have similar interests and come together. Madison also makes a point that wealth can be acquired or people can come from privileged backgrounds, giving them a starting point in owning property and making money Some people own personal property and even have wealth because they have the ability or capacity to acquire it property and maintained effectively. These abilities are defined as individual abilities or capabilities.

3. There are many sources of wealth and poverty, including access to resources, education, and opportunities. But many people are already born into wealth, and because that wealth is not shared or taxed fairly to the rich, that perpetuates poverty.

4. I don’t think that because diversity of talents and abilities isn’t the only way to make money, already making money is a big deal, it’s the exclusion of others that causes inequality

5. I am not surprised that James Madison was not in favor of democracy because throughout Federalist #10 he argues that a greater republic with representative government could better protect the rights of the individual and prevent the tyranny of the majority. He believed that in a true democracy the majority could become too powerful, which would make life difficult for powerful people with money.

1. 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.

Based on arguments presented in both articles the constitution was written by the wealthy upper class people. They called them the Framers of the constitution. The framers often referred themselves as the founding fathers. These individuals were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington. The group of people who were excluded from these events were the lower class. These group of people were women, slaves African American and basically anybody who didn’t own any property or wealth. 

• 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 colonial America was different compared to the social class structure of modern times. For example, the accumulation of wealth depended on various factors such as the amount of land owned. Now there are many opportunities for people to make money from different businesses. Unlike today where learning is a more complex concept, the curriculum was more stable. For example, class in contemporary society can be represented on the basis of education, occupations and environment in which people grew up

• 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 who wrote the Constitution wanted to protect their wealth and property and were concerned about direct democracy. Fearing that regular people might collectively take over, the wealthy instituted laws to divide power and slow down major reforms, such as not allowing people to directly elect legislators or presidents. They also establish a system in which different parts of government check and balance each other. The Framers reasoned that a powerful government with controlled and highly indirect ways of letting the public have a say would get their money out of the hands of the majority who could use democracy to override them