1. The court system protects and aids individuals better than elected branches of government as they are appointed to each have a specific plan in order, rather than just viewing the population. In a way I feel the court system is the system of the people and for the people. Meaning the elected branches of government see the country before they see anyone else. The court system can keep their focus on one individual at a time if they are going to court or such, deciding whether or not the individual deserves jail time or not or if other measures need to be taken in order to help the individual. The elected branches hear or come across different cases if they need to step in, local or state courts see 90% of the cases, leaving the 10% to the other side. If a tenant is being thrown out of their apartment by their landlord the case would not go to the federal government, it would go to the state or local court and be addressed there. The civil rights case went to the federal court due to the discrimination by private individuals which also violated the constitution.

2. I do think this doing is anti-democratic in a way. I believe the people should have a say in who is going to be appointed rather than just finding out who the individual will be. That is the part that is not democratic, the people don’t have the right to vote or research or learn what that person is about or who they are until the new media covers it and gives information. However, being that there is always a group of individuals that is sort of kept on a list means that the President has crucial information as to why they should nominate that individual. But this is how the “Federalist #10” comes into play, the President is the “only one” that can make this decision based on their power, position, and perhaps thinking they know better than the rest of the country. This allows for their legacy and their views to be represented in the court system.

The class act of Duke vs. Wal-Mart Store Inc., decided the evidence although compelling did not have sufficiency to be granted what was being asked. It was said that not all 1.5 million women working for the company had the same experienced, which meant that it was not a case to be named or seen and a gender discriminatory case. Not all women working for the company suffered the same pay gap, and not all women working for the company didn’t get a promotion. Not all women shared the same commonality in their experience while working with the company. This is also why the group did not qualify for the b(3) claim that they would have been given. If it doesn’t apply to all then it doesn’t not qualify as a class-action-lawsuit, as the purpose is for all who are being represented to share a common ground.

1.P. William says, “the war has been framed as one against “terror”- against unruly if deadly emotionalism […] the enemy becomes anybody who makes us afraid”. It is an attack against our emotions, which creates fear within. Where traditional war or combat is the specific targeting or planned.

2.The Roving Wiretaps violates the Fourth Amendment, since it is supposed to protect the seizure of private property or individual. It also targets and violates the privacy of those who may not be involved directly with the person being investigated.  

3.The same can be said for the “Sneak and Peek” warrant, as it also violates the Fourth Amendment, by allowing authorities to search a home or location without the individuals consent or any fair warning of what is coming.  

1.From what I have gathered and understood, the Establishment Clause, it prohibits for religion to be push on anyone and vise versa, allowing freedom of religion in this country. The lemon Test is to stand as action to deciding if a law or government action regarding religion, it should stay neutral.

2.Yes, the burning of the flag is protected by the First Amendment, it is seen as a freedom of speech, a way of expression. Although, the Flag Protection Act was brought up, it too was shut down, and ruled as unconstitutional.

3.This term refers to one expressing their right to not speak, share information or contribute to anything for example in a court appearance. This is to prevent self-incrimination, as if not expressed their runs a risk of admitting guilt or responsibility of a crime.

1.The federal government splits power between independent state and central government, both have power which they get from the constitution, given power by the citizens to elect those in office.

Confederal government- power rest within each state, dependable on local government.

Unitary government-  power is in central government, where it can be divided into states

2. For all the power not to be given to just one group of individuals our country has set 3 different branches to each oversee different actions. The legislative, executive and judicial branch each have the ability to check each other on different aspects and decisions being made.

3.The federal government is able to give grants to states, grants can vary on what they are for and the amount or when they can be used. For this reason during COVID-19 pandemic the local and state government were granted $2.6 billion in federal resources and $100 million of state funding. These grants are set for when drastic things happen, such as the pandemic or any natural disaster phenomenon’s.

1.It reminds me of concept of the founding fathers, belonging to the established social order, in the terms of establishing regulations for themselves, and leaving a large majority of groups out.

2.According to James Madison, the source of wealth comes from faculties made up of white males, in connection to the founding fathers, wanting the ones in government then to have property and so on. Which helped in keeping their status and set them apart from the rest of the classes and guard their wealth. In which continues the cycle of only the 1% or so being able to achieve the wealth and pass it on.

3.I do agree with the explanation of wealth and poverty, as today it still exist. I don’t however agree that wealth should be only gained or contained to the same few individuals that have more power. It is because of this power and connection that poverty is still alive today. It hasn’t changed much since the country was established. Poverty can be diminished if equality existed in the world, giving others the same opportunity, rather than helping the already rich to maintain their status.

4.The core mission or “first object” is to guard the wealthy and their status. It does not surprise me one bit that from the very beginning this was the goal, and it still is today, although sugar coated a bit. I think that the government tries to say it is for the people, but it really isn’t, it’s for the wealthy that keep on giving. I believe that back then in the founding father era their mission was to keep the wealthy in a sort of safety net, and it still continues. The working class and the lower class even today still struggle to be helped, to be seen and heard.

5.Truly not surprised by Federalist #10 opposes democracy and follows the republican party. As I mentioned in a different discussion board, this way of thinking is from old school white wealthy men that has passed on their families, just like their wealth. I think the author would dislike a democracy as it would mean that the majority would actually finally benefit from the wealthy and not the other way around. I also think the author would dislike this as it would mean the protection or shield that has been created from the wealthy would be gone, leaving them to actually live by what it says. It would mean that all are equal, no more upper class like there is now.

1. The writers of the constitution was done by the “established social order”, the ones that had money and land, upper class. The working class and lower class were excluded from the constitution. The ones involved in the writing were white males who had enough land to be seen as elite, and capable of making the right decision and not being “tempted” as the poor. Although white males were in the group that did the writing, not all white males had a role in it, if they didn’t own X amount of land in their state they were not able to contribute. The ones excluded were in debt, this set them apart from the established social order, along with women, white males who didn’t own the right about of land, servants and slaves. It was also mentioned the thought of those not contributing to become greedy or have a sense of ambition if they did not come from wealth already.
2. I think it depends, as of today, voting is open to all American citizens, which allows them to have their voice be heard as the mass majority of the country. Yet, not everything applies to protect all classes. The wealthy still benefit the most. The big difference today is, most of the population doesn’t own any land, which would mean they couldn’t vote, this also goes for all the groups that were excluded. In todays agenda all are welcomed to vote. There are still the different class brackets.
3. They were afraid of the threat it could impose to their structure that was already created. The safety of their wealth would be in danger if democracy was implemented. Many changes would come due to democracy and their established social order would be no more.

1. The biggest impression on wealth inequality from the reading is the following quote, “What they really mean is that they are using their money to put human labor to work, paying workers less in wages than they produce in sales. That’s how money “grows”. First due to the meaning of the quote, the richer get richer by under paying us, the actual individuals that are able to produce their product, yet we don’t see the profit. We are exploited for out skills, wha we can produce for the company, how much of it and how fast. I think I never really thought about it this way, but we provided our services, our skills and rather than us seeing the return of our work, only the investors or those higher up actually get to enjoy what our hard work does.
2. In our country there are huge gaps in wealth equity, it starts at a young age. We are either born into the money or will have a rather chance to become Bill Gates. The biggest wealth inequality in our country is, education. This lone problem in my opinion holds the key to having more people reach the top. Because black and brown communities don’t have the same means of income, the kids at a young age are already falling behind on getting ahead. Money is not split evenly within districts, rather than giving a higher budget to lower income schools, the budgets go to the wealthier schools, due to higher scores in state testing. The inequality then continues for years in the school system until the student has the chance break barriers and push forward.

By now the idea of capitalist is very clear, those with wealth hire others to continue to make them more money or M’, surplus. Money is used to buy Commodity or labor from employees, the exchange of labor for low wages, which then turns into M’ as the surplus being made by the workers. The M’ represents the profits being made that allow for the owners wealth to grow, keeping it in a steady growth. As long as the employees continue to work for shorter hours to meet the company requirements then the rest of the time spent working will continue to make the company a surplus. This is how the capital can keep growing.