In Walmart V. Dukes, the Supreme Court decided that no class action lawsuit against Walmart regarding their treatment of female employees. The key reason for their ruling centered on the issue of “commonality.” Given the sheer size and scope of the class action law suit, the Supreme Court refused to recognize any commonality among the participants, or in any solution. To this end, the Supreme Court also failed to recognize the innately precarious situation of women who work at Walmart as a singular class.

1. According to P.Williams, the War on Terror was a new kind of war because of the massive powers conferred tremendous power on the federal government’s ability to prosecute the war. This led directly to the Patriot Act which allowed intelligence and law enforcement entities the power to go around the constitution, and conduct surveillance within the United States. 
2. Roving Wiretaps infringed on the individual’s right to privacy, and it would appear to violate the 4th Amendment. By designating a person a target for wiretap, it ventures into “unreasonable search and seizure” territory. Additionally, they provide little recourse against abuse. As it casts such a wide net, anyone in any kind of contact with a suspect can become ensnared in an investigation. 
3. Sneek and Peek warrants are a very good example of the kind of insidious over-reach of the Patriot Act. It too violates the 4th Amendment, and essentially serves as a way of allowing law enforcement to get out of any check to the power to investigate and prosecute.

1. The Establishment Clause is the clause which seeks to limit the extent to which the government is involved in religion. First, it bars the government from establishing or imposing a state religion. Second, it prohibits the government from favoring any religion over another. Related to the Establishment Clause is the “Lemon Test,” is used to specifically determine if a law is in line with the establishment clause. It does this by affirming the following three points: 1- the law must have a legitimate secular purpose, 2- the primary effect of the law does nothing to hinder or enhance religion, and 3- the law would involve minimal participation from the government to enforce. 
2. Flag Burning is protected by the First Amendment. After Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted for burning the flag in Texas, his case was taken up by the Supreme Court who determined the conviction was unconstitutional. Additional laws passed to criminalize flag burning have also been deemed unconstitutional. 
3. When somebody says they’re “taking the fifth,” they are referring to their right to invoke the 5th amendment, which protects citizens from self incrimination. One takes the fifth when they refuse to answer any questions.

1. The role of citizens in the federal, confederation, and unitary systems differs in regards to the overall power of the individual. In the unitary system, power comes from the centralized government downwards. There is significantly less regional control in this system. A Confederation on the other hand potentially includes the most direct popular means of participating in government. As the state holds the most power, decisions would be directly determined by the eligible voters within the state. The Federal system is something of a hybrid of the two other systems. Significant power is vested in the Federal Government, but through the election of senators and representatives to Congress, citizens are able to have some input into their laws. 
2. To my understanding, the division of power is what prevents one aspect of the state apparatus from becoming too powerful. Within our federal system, there are the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial wings of the government. Each holds separate but equal powers used to maintain balance within the system. The individual states also contribute to the division of power as a counterweight to the federal government itself.
3. The federal government plays a significant role in shaping state and local governments. Chiefly through the allocation of funds. One easy example of this is the drinking age. During the 1980s, the drinking age was set federally to 21. The federal government was able to compel lawmakers to agree to this by only providing highways funds to states that went along with it. And as federal law is the supreme law in the country, states are generally within standards set at a federal level. As we saw during COVID, the intervention of the federal government during emergencies can be massive. The federal government provided the state and local municipalities with supplies and funds to deal with the crisis. Obviously there were problems, and poor leadership at both federal and state levels made a bad situation worse, but the overall impact of the federal government during COVID was tremendous.

1. Class identity creates factions. On the one hand, there is the one faction, the Owning Class, and on the other, The Working Class. Both coalesce around the common interest of their composite parts, and seek to achieve their goals. 

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 the Federalist #10, the source of wealth owes to the individuals “faculties,” that is, their innate ability to create and accumulate wealth. Madison understands that this creates conflict, as those without such faculties have very different interests than those with. For this reason, it was necessary for the government to establish rules to protect these interests.

Like a lot of the “founding fathers,” Madison felt that most people were not intellectually or temperamentally capable of participating directly in public affairs. To them, the best solution for all involved was to allow indirect participation. This protected the assets of the owning class, while also allowing them to believe they were protecting the second class from itself. 

3. I do not agree that the ability to generate wealth is some trait passed to us by God, but I do believe the “system,” such as it is, was developed to protect and assist in the accumulation of wealth for the owning class. Their genius was how well they weaved it all into the shape of the system.

1. 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 of the US Government is to protect the ability of the dominant owning class to generate wealth. Maybe I’m naive, but I suspect most people understand this at some level. It’s maybe a leading question, but if you asked someone “is it the job of the Government to ensure the ability of businesses to be successful,” I’m certain they would agree. It’s a loaded sentence, sure, because that ability can mean a lot of different things, but broadly I think people understand the government is there to protect business. Maybe they would say “protect the country,” by which they mean from direct physical attack, but I don’t think that’s all that unsurprising or wrong of a response either. 

2. 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…

I’m not surprised that Madison was not in favor of direct democracy. He himself acknowledges the threat to order posed by factions, and believed that it would take the reasoned, paternal benevolence to properly run the country, and represent the interests of other property owning people. A pure democracy would, in theory any way, pose a threat to the elites. If people voted directly, they would be in greater control of the levers of power. But as the vote is indirect, those in power are better able to look out for their own interests.

1. The Constitution was written by the Property Holders (white, land owning men, crucially those whose assets were great enough for them to live off) of the time. Not included were the Disenfranchised (nearly all other classes of people, such as slaves, women, Native Americans, and white men who did not own property, among others.) The major difference between the two was that the first class was in a position to exercise power and develop the federal government, and the other was not. It was in the interest of the first group to secure the necessary protections for their financial prospects. This runs counter to the interests of the second. The constitution saddled this second class with debt, and an apparatus capable of preventing any recourse against the power of the elite. 

The property holders understood that the federal government, however onerous, would be a good bulwark against any threat to their wealth. By establishing a system where only they could participate, they were able to create for themselves a system where they truly did lord above everyone else. 

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

It’s interesting to consider how similar or dissimilar our class structure is today as compared to the late 18th century. Reading 6.1 specifies that in order to participate in politics, one had not only to own land, but have sufficient enough available cash to live freely on. At the outset we already can see a distinction between debt owning property owners (which would likely be considered some tier of middle class now) and those with considerable wealth. This very much continues today. 

There are probably ways in which it’s dissimilar as well, but I’m not sure how much of that is language, or just development. Certainly there’s a sense that mobility between classes is more of a possibility than the framers had imagined, and I can’t help but think that has altered the situation slightly. But it’s also true that this mobility is still within the system, so to the extent to which that’s real change, I don’t know. 

3. The men who wrote the constitution were afraid of direct democracy because they understood the interests they were seeking to protect were markedly different from those of the governed. They were at opposite ends of class, and they knew that without writing in specific protections against the will of the people, they would risk their ability to generate wealth to insurrection. 

1. I’m always struck to see how much the top 1% own in any given article. Mostly because it seems like it becomes a larger number each year. In anycase, it’s an interesting number because it really does beg the question: what is “wealthy.” I’ve actually met a fair degree of wealthy people in my life, and certainly the majority of them are nowhere near the top 1%. Still though, they’re very wealthy. It indicates to me just what the wealth of the 1% must actually be. Wild stuff. 

2. A society with huge wealth inequalities will suffer serious and debilitating consequences. For one, as the gap widens, any chance at addressing the issue shrinks. Those at the top will become increasingly entrenched in their positions, while those below are left with fewer resources. This leads to a situation where, at best, those with money determine that they are in the best situation to control society, as they are the ones with the money. I see this played out all of the time. A really good place to observe this is in the non-profit sector. These organizations are largely funded through private donations, and these donations give the benefactor a tremendous amount of power. I’ve witnessed this at a few different social-service nonprofits I’ve worked for. Very frequently you end up doing work that has less to do with a given mission, or more the whims of a wealthy board member. It’s also worth mentioning that a lot of these donations are for the purpose of tax write offs as well. 

M-C-M’ allows the capitalists to maintain and increase their wealth by creating a monetary cycle where wage labor is purchased at the lowest possible amount, and then harnessed to produce surplus-value. The potentially “limitless,” accumulation of surplus value enhances the purchasing power of the capitalist, thereby giving them greater power through money. The capitalist, for instance, can use the money to purchase more efficient equipment for his factory. This machine allows the workers to complete more work within the hour, but their wage will remain the same. The equipment will, in short order, increase the overall surplus value.