1. 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).

The Walmart case is considered the largest class action lawsuit in American. It is related to 1.5 million of American women workers who sued Walmart stores for discrimination after a wage gaps had been emerged between male and female. The supreme court had decided to end the case in favor of Walmart justifying its position by claiming that the class represented in Dukes failed to meet Rule 23’s commonality requirement as it was mentioned in the reading “ the 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees were not all denied the same promotion, the same pay raise, or insulted, belittled, or obstructed by the same manager in the same store, their cases could not legitimately be litigated all at once.” In other words since there is different circumstances, places and managers the class could not be identified as a class action lawsuit since it does meet the its requirements.   

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.

I think the court system is better suited to protect the individual, than the elected branches of the government because the court justices are pointed by the president and confirmed by the senate for a lifetime duration which means they are not elected by people. Therefore, they do not have political influences and they are willing to apply the law and respect the constitution in a way to protect individual’s liberty and rights even if the cases are related to controversial topics. While the elected officials are influenced by the public opinions who elects them.     

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.)

In my opinion, the American supreme court is antidemocratic in terms of the way judges are selected. They are not involved in a political election and thus they do not have to worry for the public opinion on making decision since they are appointed by president and confirmed by the senate for a time life. While the democracy involves people in a first degree. Moreover, referring to the federal 10 which categorize the owner class to leading the American government and it works to promote and protect their properties is a better point to say that the court supreme antidemocratic.  However, we could notice certain democracy if we look the supreme court in terms of dealing with the constitution which serves people and protect their rights and liberties. It is an indirect way to practice democracy.

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?

According to P. William the war on terror is new type which targets our mind and emotion. It is a form of social panic in which the enemy becomes the persons who plants fair full on us. Contrarily to the traditional war which have specific target as it mentioned in the reading, “the war has been framed as one against “terror” – against unruly if deadly emotionalism – rather than as a war against specific bodies, specific land, specific resources.”   

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 of the Patriot Act violate the bill of right because it stands for authorizing surveillance for the targets by wiretapping the devices that they use even if the person targeted discovered the investigation act and he or she switched the device. The investigation will be continued even if the police or the FBI did not have the warrant to do so. This is considered violation for the fourth amendment which requires for investigators to having the warrants in order to access people’s privacy other ways it will be a violation for the bill of rights.    

3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

     Sneek and Peek warrant is a provision that permit investigators to search in people’s home or business without having a not that allows the investigation. I think this is a violation of the fourth amendment which indicate that government official must be afforded by the warrant to have permission to search or seizure a house or business.

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

On my understanding, the establishment clause refers to the part of the first amendment from the US constitution which protect freedom of religion. It is an establishment that prevent government from imposing any religion for people. In other words, under this clause people have the freedom to practice any religion or/and believes and without government interference or involvement in setting law to directing people to follow certain religion. Also, it forbids the government from favoring one set of religions believes over others or favoring religion on its diversity over non-religion. This clause stands to respect and protect the diversity of religion in the country. The government set up what is known as lemon test to determine whether the establishment clause is violated or no. the lemon test is characterized by three rules including:

a.  The action or law must not lead to excessive government entanglement with religion.

b. The action or law cannot either inhibit or advance religious practice; it should be neutral in its effects on religion.

c. The action or law must have some secular purpose; there must be some non-religious justification for the law.

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

Flag is considered one of symbols of the nation and citizen must respect it and condemn anyone who try to harm it in any way and burning flag is considered a crime  . However, and based on what I understood from the reading the first amendment does not protect the burning flag since this act is considered as a freedom of expression which is protected by the first amendment as it is mentioned in the reading 9.1 “ in 1989, the Supreme Court decided in Texas v. Johnson that burning the flag was a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment and found the law, as applied to flag desecration, to be unconstitutional”. It is understandable from this quote that the position of the court supreme by the virtue of applying and respecting the law demonstrates that the law applied to flag desecration is not considered constitutional which means it is not written in the constitution and burning flag is form of speech which is protected by the first amendment. However, this decision had been criticized by the congress leading into passing a federal law to protect the flag and strive to attempting to make a constitutional law that convict the flag desecration. As it mentioned in the reading, “This court decision was strongly criticized, and Congress responded by passing a federal law, the Flag Protection Act, intended to overrule it; the act, too, was struck down as unconstitutional in 1990.²⁵ Since then, Congress has attempted on several occasions to propose constitutional amendments allowing the states and federal government to re-criminalize flag desecration—to no avail.”

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

On my understanding, “I am taking the fifth” it is the famous phrase that refers to the clause afforded by the fifth amendment which protect the rights of being silent in the court rather than giving the testimony that could harm one’s self. It is known as the protection against self-incrimination whereby individuals are not forced to testify and /or respond in the court for the questions asked.   

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

According to the reading 7.2, Federal system consists of two levels of the government including national and subnational and citizens vote and elect representatives from both levels. While in the unitary system the central government control the situation and the subnational is in dependence for it which means citizens are not involved and they left the torch for the central government. Lastly the confederation is characterized by the central government’s dependance for subnational. In other words, the confederation relies on the local government whereby citizen have more power.  

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

On my understanding, the system of division of power which is also called separation of power is a system adopted by US constitution in a goal of strengthening the government power as well as protecting individual’s freedom. It consists of three branches which work based on different responsibilities and it function under the checks and balances system whish mean each branch has its power and no one should be powerful than the other. Those three branches are:

1. The legislative branch: it represents the U.S congress which consist of the senators (100) and house of representative.  
2. The executive branch: the leaders of this branch the president and vice president.
3. The judicial branch:  it consists of all courts in the society from the federal court to supreme court.      
4. 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.

3. Federal, states and local government work in cooperation to serve the public. Federal government provide grants and financial fund and the states and local government ensure the great quality of life for citizen by managing those grants and distribute it for different infrastructures in the state such as education, healthcare, provide water, security and so on. For instance, during the COVID 19 federal government provide the states with fund and supply to batter managing the crisis. New York city is considered the epicenter of the pandemic which create a great short of supply and fund to manage the situation leading Governor Andrew to call on Congress to provide $59 billion to address catastrophic budget shortfalls that impact the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of workers in the state.  

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

Jams Madison state in the federation10, “ By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” faction is group of people who gather to protect and extend their perspectives and interest and they oppose the rights and interest of whether other groups in the society or the community. It reminds me of the social class.  

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)?

According to federalist 10 the source of wealth is the diversity in the faculties of men whish refers to the organism from where the rights of properties derive which is considered a source of wealth and power for the owners. James Madison states, “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.” (Federalist 10).it is understandable from this statement that the government strive in defending and protection properties resulting them to remain the wealthiest people.  

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

I do believe in this explanation of poverty and wealth because wealthiest people gain a position of powerful and thus having the influence differently on the markets, government which lead to the unequal distribution of properties that prevents poor people from focusing on everything but competing to own properties.

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 first mission of the US government is to defend, protect and promote rich and wealthy people. This does not surprise me since the wealth is source of powerful and thus it is mostly to be the influencer on the society. it is seemingly not match different from society today because wealthy people remain in a position of controlling the society and thus the different classes sustain emerged. Since we steal living in a society where the dependent relationship between working class and capitalist remains imposing itself. This situation become as a basic need of the society.     

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 the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government? Hint: think about how this question connects with the social classes…

Democracy on its propre means is a governmental apparatus that is distinguished from the people to the people, and it is a system that promote equality. In fact, private proprieties will be exposed to be disturbed for all people equally which means democracy threaten the safety of private proprieties leading the author to dislike a pure democracy and support the republic since that later support and protect wealthy people and call for the freedom. So , I am not surprised by the author’s position.           

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 American constitution had been written under specific circumstances of that time including social class disparities and an extreme oppression. According to the reading materials the upper and middle class aggregated in close reunion in Philadelphia to participating in writing the constitution as it mentioned in the reading 6.1, “The delegates spent many weeks debating and defending their interests, but these were the differences of merchants, slaveholders, and manufacturers, a debate of haves versus haves” (4). Clearly, all owners are debating and defending their properties seeking the new government to provide more protection for it. While the rest of people in society were deprived from the participation as it states in the article 6.1, “On these issues, there were no poor farmers, artisans, indentured servants, or slaves attending the convention to proffer an opposing viewpoint” (5). Probably those people are deprived from the reunion because they were the marginalized class in the society, and they do not own properties to defending. Regarding the working class the article states, “Ordinary working people could not take off four months to go to Philadelphia and write a constitution.” (5). They were unable to work by the virtue of they could not stop working four long times (4 month) to writing a constitution.

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

 In my opinion the social class structure of early United State society, was the same as nowadays society in terms of having reach or owner class controlling the society and I believe that the more people have money and wealth the more they have advantages to being better place since poor people or lower class are barely gaining the needs of their living. In fact, they have less advantages (it is not impossible, it is a question of interest and motivation). However, in terms of having rights is somehow different since now people are having more freedom to running for office or participating in vote exerting their legacy.

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.

The main reason of the fear of who wrote the constitution of democracy is that it threaten the safety of their properties since democracy system is popular and its rules are made by the majority of people as it mentions in the reading 6.1, “The framers were of the opinion that democracy (rule by the common people) was “the worst of all political evils” as Elbridge Gerry put it.”(4). Under democracy it is possible for owner class to encounter problems that could lead them to lose their wealth and thus their social class.      

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

The statistic on wealth inequality in the us that made the biggest impression is that the majority of people in the country are poor people as it says in the article, “90 percent of American families have little or no net assets.” While the wealth of the nation belongs to the minority of people. This situation reveals the fact that capitalist or reach people had conquered the market increasing their fortunes and preserving the most prestigious class in society at the expense of all other classes which are deprived somehow from having assets in a country in where they are belonging.       

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?

The implications that could be driven from living in the society where the wealth inequality emerges is the increasing of social phenomena and many health deficiency typically mental health and thus increasing the crime’s rates in the society because by the virtue of living in such circumstances, probably poor people will resort to find various way by which they could compensate that deficiency. In fact, they could commit violence, stilling or any other way that permits them keep up their living. For example, student who are deprived from the basic supply of studying they are forced by those circumstances to quite their studies in order search for a better way of leaving. While student whose parent are wealthy, they have more opportunities to continue studying and thus having more advantages to be the future wealthy persons.           

Explain M-C-M’ to show how capitalists maintain and increase their wealth.

The M-C-M’ is the act of buying with the Money that already owned the Commodity and selling it to gain more M’oney. The money that has been gained (profit) more than the money owned. This process adopted by capitalist to increase their profit or what it calls the surplus value which is represented by M’. So, capitalist invest their money capital to buying products and those products will be sold in the market with higher prices which permit them to increases their profit and thus sustain wealthy.