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?

I feel like the connection between white people and racism is multifaceted. Because white people play a very important role in many social processes, this means that many rules are formulated based on the wishes of white people. White people are often given privileges and are in an advantageous position. This will lead to suppression, exclusion and unfairness towards non-white people. This is reflected in all aspects of society. White people are currently at the top of capitalism in society. In order to consolidate the class, of course others will not be allowed to break it.

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?

I agree with Gilmore when she says criminal justice disproportionately targets and punishes those in marginalized communities, meaning the poor or minorities. Due to bias, police execution is also biased. And prisons are not built out of judicial needs, but profit-oriented. In other words, it was not built because there were too many people incarcerated. Instead, we hope that more new “criminals” will enter the prison. The criminal justice and prison systems will perpetuate crime. Meanwhile the criminal justice and prison systems focus on punishment rather than helping offenders reintegrate into society. People who have been released from prison may commit another crime.

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

My understanding is that different minorities and those who are oppressed come together and act collectively. The goal of the liberation struggle was not simply reform but structural transformation. That is, addressing racism, poverty, systems of privilege, etc.

What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what this legal terms means, as it is key to the court’s decision).

Court denies certification of class action lawsuit filed by female Walmart employees. Female employees indicated gender discrimination in the treatment of pay and promotion practices at the same level. The key point in this case is commonality, which refers to the requirement that collective members have common legal or factual issues. That means they all face the same problem. The law considers the plaintiffs’ claims to be too diverse. There is insufficient evidence to prove that there is sufficient commonality between class members. In other words, not all women are discriminated against in the work environment, and different cases are carried out in different settings or positions, so they are very different, and it is difficult to classify them together, so there is no difference between collectives. Great commonality. In other words, it is difficult for their case to be treated as a class action.

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.

Judicial independence: Since justices are appointed for life, they are not easily affected by political parties or the current political environment. This long term ensures relative equality and fairness in the administration of justice. Therefore, it can ensure that individual rights will not be persecuted because of the interests of the majority. For example, elected members or the president sometimes have to make compromises because of the support of the majority of votes. Such compromises inevitably harm the interests of a small number of people.

The Miranda case also illustrates how different levels of government in the court system ensure that certain rights of an individual are not violated, even if he is indeed considered to have violated the law in some way. So the court system is in some ways better suited to protecting individuals than an elected government.

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 first thing is to look at how to define democracy. If the majority is the criterion, then it is anti-democratic. If democracy is defined as fairness and justice, and that individual rights are not persecuted by the capitalist class or government factions, then it is not anti-democratic. First of all, the Federalists argued that most ordinary citizens did not have the ability and cognition to make rational judgments. Therefore, it is easy to create the danger of majority tyranny and the possibility of undermining minority rights in parties. The interests of a few are often sacrificed for the interests of the majority, causing personal rights to be infringed. This cannot be said to be fair and just. Therefore, the direct and permanent appointment of justices ensures that they will not be affected by political pressure and do not need to make compromises for political purposes that will affect the impartiality of the judiciary. It can be seen from the cases that even justices appointed by presidents of different factions do not always support their respective factions. Moreover, the backup candidates for justices usually have rich and professional knowledge to ensure their judicial professionalism. The appointment of justices usually requires the approval of a majority of the Senate. This link also partially represents the system of its voters, which has a certain degree of supervision over the selection of justices. So seemingly anti-democratic forms better express democratic goals.

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

Establishment Clause: My understanding is that Congress is not allowed to make laws limiting or prohibiting the establishment and freedom of religion. Demand a clear separation of politics and religion.

Lemon Test: Three criteria are met for a law or action to be constitutional and remain in effect. 1. There is a clear separation between government and religion and they cannot be overly entangled. 2. Religion is neither helped nor inhibited by government actions or laws. keep neutral. 3 A law or action has some worldly purpose.

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

Burning the American flag is protected by the First Amendment. In the reading material, in 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning was a form of symbolic speech. Conveying specific information or ideas is protected by the First Amendment. The government cannot ban speech because society finds it uncomfortable

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

Meaning they were exercising their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. A person may refuse to answer information that may be used against them in legal proceedings.

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?

Traditional war A struggle between states or governments. And the war on terror is against non-state actors. As the documents say, bin Laden organized the terrorist organization in the 911 incident. Since terrorists in the war on terrorism are unconventional military forces, their tactics are different from traditional battlefield confrontations. For example, terrorist attacks on civilians. The war on terror is a long-term and global war. It is difficult to end in the short term. In addition to defeating the opponent’s military capabilities like traditional war, the war on terrorism also requires counter-terrorism work. Such as intelligence gathering, surveillance, and law enforcement operations.

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?

Roving Wiretaps: Ability to wiretap multiple authorized devices at once, eliminating the need for separate court warrants for the suspect’s devices. This may violate the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Because the Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. If law enforcement agencies need to search or monitor, they need authorization from the court and can only lawfully enforce the specific matters specified in the authorization. This provision of the USA PATRIOT Act gives law enforcement agencies the freedom not to target specific things. Meaning it could lead to the surveillance of communications with innocent people who happen to be related to the target. And excessive rights may lead to abuse of rights without supervision, thereby infringing on personal privacy rights.

3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

The Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures must be subject to a court-authorized search warrant, and the scope of law enforcement is limited by the specific content of the search warrant. At the same time, the person being searched must be notified, unless there are special circumstances. “Sneek and Peek” warrants, which are authorized to delay notification, violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. Due to delayed notification, the person being searched may not even know that a search has been carried out, and without notification, personal privacy rights may be violated.

1. Describe the primary differences in the role of citizens in government, among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems.

Federal : Mainly deals with issues at the national level. Such as diplomacy and national defense. Distribution of power between central government and local government. Citizens have the right to vote at different levels of government and the obligation to pay taxes to different levels of government. and comply with the requirements of laws at various levels of government.

Confederation: Limited central authority, power is concentrated in regional and state governments, so there is not much citizen participation at the national level. Instead, there has been more involvement in local and state governments.

Unitary systems:Powers are mainly concentrated in the central government, with limited local government rights. Citizens are also primarily tied directly to the central government.

2. Briefly explain how you understand the system of division of power.

My understanding of the system of division of power is to reasonably distribute power, ensure that each government or agency has partial rights rather than absolute rights, prevent any one department from having unchecked power, and maintain checks and balances. The best example is that the president leads the government with executive power, the National Assembly has legislative power, and the court judges have judicial power to rule. Each part has power against the other two parts.

Disadvantage: At the same time, the class knowledge learned from previous modules is quoted. When all governments or institutions only have partial rights, and when the implementation or withdrawal of a policy requires the consent of the majority, the minority has the right to control the rights of the majority. For example, when a policy that only benefits the wealthy capitalist class is repealed, the rights of a few people can prevent the repeal of the bill.

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.

The federal government influences the actions of state and local governments through policy formulation and federal law as a standard priority when policies at different levels conflict, or through financial support. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government has provided financial and resource assistance to all levels of government, such as economic assistance to businesses, and assistance with medical resources such as vaccines, testing medical supplies, etc. In terms of policy, the federal government has authorized all levels of government to take necessary measures to combat the epidemic, such as issuing stay-at-home regulations.

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.

The economic and political elite of the time wrote the Constitution.  All Native Americans (“Indians”), per-sons of African descent, women, indentured servants, and White males lacking sufficient property were excluded and not allowed to participate in this process.

2. Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain.

Different. Early American society was an agricultural society. Now tend to service information and so on. Civil rights also differed from many of the restrictions in early American politics. America today has expanded civil rights and political participation. Social mobility and educational resources compared to earlier monopolies. Educational resources in today’s society are more mobile.

3. 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.

Because elites fear that the majority of people have the ability to change or fight inequality, thus threatening their dominant position. This is why the elites ask the government to formulate wealth protection policies to protect their wealth. At the same time, the elite has little trust in ordinary people. They feel that the general public’s education level and cognition are not high and they are unable to make reasonable decisions.

1. What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of?

I think of factions as groups that are united by differences such as wealth, perceived religion, or for self-interest or common interests.

2. According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), what is the source of wealth (private property)? What factor explains why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property, and others don’t (thus remaining poor)? This is a key question, because it shows how the authors of the Constitution thought about the difference between different classes of Americans! HINT: focus on the passage that begins: “The diversity in the faculties (WHAT DOES FACULTIES mean or refer to?) of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not les….”

According to Federalist #10 The source of wealth is from the diversity of individual efforts and talents, obtained through competition.

why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property, and others don’t. Because many factors, such as slavery or discrimination and other biased policies, lead to unfair distribution of wealth, it has a huge impact on the wealth accumulation of different groups. Some people can easily accumulate wealth, while others are deprived of a fair chance to accumulate wealth. to the end of poverty. There is also the long-term wealth gap caused by the unfairness of social educational resources.

3. Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?

I don’t agree. Because the diversity of abilities is also based on relative fairness. People who already have wealth have more and better social, educational and cultural resources, so they can better accumulate more on the original basis, and deprive others of the opportunity to accumulate wealth fairly.

4. What is the core mission (“first object”) of the US government? Does this surprise you, does it sound different from what our society today seems to suggest the core mission of the government is? Explain.

The core mission (“first object”) of the US government is to build a more perfect society and ensure fairness, justice and freedom. Improve citizen welfare. It surprised me, because from the text, it seems that the early United States focused on civil liberties, equality, welfare and other aspects that were beneficial to the people. However, in the actual society at that time, most civil society and political rights were controlled by a small number of people with wealth (people without property could not vote). Although social conflicts still exist today, social security is much more inclusive than when civil rights were improved in the early days.

5. Given the discussion in questions 1-4, are you surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy, and supports a Republican (representative) form of government? Why would d the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government? Hint: think about how this question connects with the social classes…

Not surprised. Because the framers believed that democracy would give the majority the ability to rebel against the small minority that owns wealth. threaten their wealth and status. 

The reason the author dislikes a (pure) democratic form of government is Pure democracy in which the majority dominates may lead to instability in the social order and tyranny. Because most people’s educational level is not high. It’s hard to make a sound decision. Most people in the middle and lower classes may use their rights to oppress the rights of other groups, eventually leading to tyranny. Pure democracy may lead to class-based factions using their numerical superiority to gain their own interests at the expense of the interests (private property) of others (who are smaller in number).

1. Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p. 29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why?

The top 1% own 40% to 50% of the country’s total wealth. The gap is crazy. Use the comparison given in the following article. The gap between the richest and the poor is thousands of times greater.

2. What could be some of the implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities? Do you see this dynamic getting played out in everyday life in our society? How so? Example?

A society with a huge gap between rich and poor is prone to class privilege and unequal distribution of resources. Capital’s wealth is built on and exploits workers. Workers can only rely on the means of production of the capitalist class to earn work for their daily needs, in a passive form. So many times the working class has to be dictated by the capitalist class, otherwise it will lose its income. This is reflected in the uneven distribution of resources. The rich can more easily receive better education and better jobs, while the poor are too busy surviving to have better opportunities. The class gap between rich and poor is only growing.