Discussion 5.1

Q #1: Production is the process of making or birthing something from raw materials centers cars, toiletries, etc. Labor is the physical and mental work or effort utilized to produce goods.

Q #2: value is the worth of an object or service accumulates. An item has the ability to grow more valuable by their prominence to their owner.

Q #3: The value of something is determined by how much time and effort is designated Into the labor. However much labor put into the production of anything increases its value.

Q#4: Labor is the method of how people produce goods and services. Labor power is how employees sell themselves to their employers to be a useful tool and asset.

Q #5: Surplus value is what is leftover between a products price and what it cost in order to manufacture the product.

Jennifer Louis- Supreme court

The Supreme Court decided that women could not file a lawsuit against Walmart because they could not establish that all women faced the same problem, discrimination against employees. Commodity is a role here since everyone has to have the same problem, seem to have the same problem with each other in order to become a court case. Not everyone confronted the same question of discrimination, creating difficulties winning the case against all employers.

Discussion Module 13

1. As explained by MLK, the difference between just and un-just law comes down to the morality and purpose of the law. Laws which are arbitrary, exist primarily as a means of retribution, or are otherwise out of line with the commonly accepted moral code are considered unjust. Those laws which seek to protect people, or uplift them would be considered just. 

2. Understanding that there are just and unjust laws existing at the same time within our legal code is tremendously important. The distinction between the two, and being able to actively campaign (either through disobedience or the law) against unjust laws has been central to essentially all human development. But, there is also that tension. It absolutely makes a difference in the way we live our lives. For one thing, to deny the difference between the two, and merely claim that “we live in a nation of laws,” without actually considering how that might be wrong, is essentially the end-result of the Southern Strategy. It was a very successful mindworm. 

3. An example of an unjust law would be any mandatory sentencing guidelines, or any such 3 Strike policy. It’s great that these have become less popular in recent years, but the damage they caused is immeasurable. These are unjust because they exist solely to punish, but without any of the supposedly rehabilitative aims of incarceration. 

To take a very local example of a Just Law, it is the law in New York City that anyone within it have access to shelter 24 Hours a day, 365 days a year. Obviously there are a lot of ways this shakes out, and certainly the overall system is shoddy and in need of redevelopment, but it is also why NYC is able to provide the services it does, services which are virtually unheard of in many parts of the country. This law, in the city constitution, was itself the result of a lawsuit. This is a just law because it’s aim is to preserve the humanity and health of people who are usually experiencing a great deal of trouble.

Discussion Module 12

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.

Response 11

1.The court system is better suited to protect the individual for two reasons: 1- it’s structure allows for the individual to file appeals, and to push it up the hierarchy of courts. In theory this means that the individual will be given the full chance to determine if their constitutional rights have been violated  2- they are significantly less likely to be swayed by popular opinion or political pressure. An elected official might feel strongly about a certain issue, but unless that sentiment is widely shared by their constituents, it’s unlikely to find much success. Conversely, and as most frequently happens, the popular sentiment and the views held by the elected official might violate the constitution. The most famous example of this was in Brown Vs. the Board of Education. In that case, the Supreme Court was necessary to end the policy of school segregation that had been taken for granted in certain states. The elected government had been either unwilling or unable to overturn segregation. The supreme court was able to change the law, and was able to do so without the pressure of having to worry about re-election. 

2. The same principle that theoretically makes the Supreme Court better suited at protecting individual rights is the same thing that makes it at least partly anti-democratic:  the very structure of the government of the United States is designed to minimize the input of the supposedly emotional or irrational masses. As stated in the Federalist #10, the founders built the system so that only, in their view, the most trusted and able would be able to have any power. They are there to protect the American system as much as anything else.  

Introduction- Shay Shulman

Hi there,

My name is Shay Shulman and this is my last semester here at BMCC, as I will be transferring to John Jay this fall with a major in criminology and a minor in psychology. True crime and the mind and it’s operation fascinates me to no end. I very much would like to pursue a career in profiling but any area of helping cases be solved is right up my alley. My grandfather was a New York police officer so growing up watching many forensic-related TV shows definitely sparked my interest from a young age.

-Shay S

Discussion 9.2

  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.

Discussion 9.1

  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.

Discussion Board 7.1

  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.

Discussion 6.2

  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. 

  1. 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.