1- P. Williams argues that the war on terror is distinct from traditional wars because it lacks clear battlefields, enemy nations, and an official end. Unlike traditional wars, which are fought between countries with defined armies, the war on terror is waged against terrorist groups. This conflict can occur anywhere, making it much more complex and challenging to win. Williams emphasizes that the war on terror is a struggle against an idea—terrorism—rather than a specific nation. It involves non-state actors, intelligence operations, surveillance, and policies that impact civilian life, rather than solely military engagements. Additionally, there is no clear path to victory in this war, as terrorism remains an ongoing threat that cannot surrender like a conventional enemy.

2- The “Roving Wiretaps” provision of the Patriot Act raises concerns about violating the Fourth Amendment, which safeguards against unreasonable searches. Key issues include a lack of specificity, as the government can monitor any device a suspect uses without prior detail, and a weakened likely cause requirement, making surveillance easier to approve without sufficient evidence. Additionally, roving wiretaps do not require notifying the monitored individuals, reducing transparency. This surveillance can also infringe on First Amendment rights by creating a chilling effect on free speech, as individuals may self-censor due to the fear of being watched. Overall, these provisions appear to weaken protections against government overreach and pose risks to privacy and free expression.

3- “Sneak and Peek” warrants allow the government to search a person’s property without immediate notification, raising concerns about violations of the Fourth Amendment and potentially the First Amendment. These warrants can lead to unreasonable searches and delays in notification, undermining transparency and accountability. The lack of immediate oversight raises the risk of abuse, such as targeting individuals based on vague suspicions. Additionally, these warrants may create a chilling effect on free speech, as individuals might self-censor their opinions out of fear of secret surveillance. Overall, “Sneak and Peek” warrants challenge the principles of reasonable search and personal privacy established by the Fourth Amendment and can intimidate free expression protected by the First Amendment.

1-The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, stating:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This means the government cannot support, promote, or get too involved with any religion. Over time, courts have interpreted this to mean that the government cannot favor one religion over another or support religion over non-religion. It has maintained a separation between religion and state, ensuring that religious institutions do not control governmental affairs and vice versa.

To decide if a law or government action violates the Establishment Clause, courts often use the Lemon Test, named after the Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). This test has three parts:

Secular Purpose: The law must have a non-religious reason. Neutral Effect: The law should not help or harm any religion. Excessive Entanglement: The law must not involve the government with religion.

If a law fails any of these three parts, it is considered unconstitutional. For example, if the government gives money to religious schools, courts use the Lemon Test to check if it is allowed. Recently, the Supreme Court has sometimes used different tests, making its interpretation of the Establishment Clause more flexible in certain cases.

2- Burning the U.S. flag is protected by the First Amendment as a form of free speech. The Supreme Court case that established this protection is Texas v. Johnson (1989).

In this case, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag during a political protest. He was arrested and convicted under a Texas law that made flag desecration illegal. However, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that burning the flag is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. The Court decided that the government cannot stop people from expressing their opinions. This ruling confirmed that even actions some people find disrespectful—like flag burning—are still protected under free speech as long as they do not incite violence or pose a direct threat to the public.

3-” I am taking the Fifth ” means that they are using their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. This means they refuse to answer a question because their response could be used against them in a criminal case. The Fifth Amendment protects people from self-incrimination, which means they don’t have to say anything that might make them look guilty.

​The roles of citizens in government vary across federal, confederation, and unitary systems:​

• Federal Systems: Citizens elect representatives at multiple levels allowing for participation in various layers of governance.​
• Confederation Systems: Citizens primarily engage with local or regional governments, as these entities hold the majority of power, with a weaker central authority.​
• Unitary Systems: Citizens interact mainly with a strong central government, with limited influence over local governance, as local authorities operate under central control.​

The division of power refers to how governmental authority is allocated among different levels—central, regional, and local. In a federal system, this division is constitutionally defined, ensuring that each level has specific responsibilities and autonomy. This structure prevents the over-centralization of power and allows for regional diversity in policy implementation.​

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government significantly influenced the actions of New York State and its local governments through financial support and policy guidance:​

• Financial Assistance: The federal government provided funding to support New York’s response to the pandemic. This included aid to hospitals, businesses, and individuals, which was crucial in managing public health measures and economic challenges. ​
• Policy Guidance: Federal agencies issued social distancing and vaccination protocols, which New York adapted to its specific context. This collaboration ensured a coordinated effort in combating the virus.​

In summary, the federal government’s role during the pandemic exemplified the interplay between national support and state implementation, showcasing the strengths and challenges of a federal system in crisis management.

1-The concept of “faction” in Federalist #10 reminds me of social class divisions and interest groups. Madison defines factions as groups of people united by a common interest that may go against the rights of others or the common good. This is similar to how economic and political elites often work to maintain power, sometimes at the expense of the working class or marginalized groups.

2- According to Madison, wealth and private property originate from the “diversity in the faculties of men.” Here, faculties refer to people’s abilities, intelligence, and talents, which he argues naturally lead to economic inequality. He suggests that some people accumulate wealth because they have greater abilities, while others remain poor due to a lack of those same faculties. This explanation implies that economic inequality is natural and inevitable.

3- I disagree with Madison’s view that wealth is simply a result of individual abilities. While talent and effort play a role, historical and social factors—such as access to education, inherited wealth, and systemic barriers—significantly impact economic opportunities. Many hardworking people remain poor due to factors beyond their control, such as discrimination, lack of resources, and unfair labor practices. Similarly, access to education can significantly impact wealth accumulation. Wealthier families can afford high-quality education, private tutors, and extracurricular opportunities, which provide their children with better chances of success. In contrast, children from low-income families may face overcrowded schools, underfunded programs, and fewer opportunities for advancement, despite their own potential and effort.

4- Madison states that the first object of government is to protect the “diversity in the faculties of men”—which essentially means protecting private property and economic inequality. This is surprising because modern society often suggests that the government’s primary role is to serve the people by ensuring equality, justice, and public welfare. Madison’s view prioritizes protecting the wealthy over addressing social inequality.

5- It’s not surprising that Madison opposed pure democracy and supported a representative government (Republic). He feared that in a true democracy, the majority (poor and working-class citizens) could unite to redistribute wealth or challenge the power of property owners. By advocating for a Republic, he ensured that wealthy elites had greater control over the government, protecting their economic interests from potential challenges by the lower classes. This reinforces how the Constitution was designed to maintain class hierarchy rather than promote equal participation for all.

1- The Constitution was written by wealthy, landowning elites, including merchants, plantation owners, and lawyers. These men, like George Washington and James Madison, had money, property, and political influence, in the early United States, only white men who owned property were allowed to vote. If you were poor, a woman, Black, or Native American, you couldn’t vote. The idea was that only wealthy landowners had enough “knowledge and responsibility” to make political decisions. The working class, poor farmers, indentured servants, enslaved people, women, and Native Americans were excluded from the process. They had no say in the government and were not allowed to participate in writing or approving the Constitution, Wealthy landowners and merchants were a small group, but they had most of the political power.

2- The basic structure of early U.S. society the same as today is similar, but the details have changed. In early America, wealthy white landowners controlled the government, and poor people had little power. Today, rich elites still hold most political influence, but more people have the right to vote and participate. However, economic inequality still exists. Just like in the past, corporations and the wealthy use money to influence politics, while the working class struggles to have their voices heard. for example, in early America, wealthy white landowners-controlled politics, while poor farmers and laborers had little power. Today, more people can vote, but the wealthy still hold the most influence. Corporations and billionaires use money to shape policies that benefit them, while the working class struggles to have their interests represented.

3- The people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy because the rich landowners and merchants feared that true democracy would give power to poor people, who might vote for laws that taxed the rich, redistributed land, or regulated businesses. they wanted to protect their wealth by creating a government that limited the power of ordinary people. This is why they designed systems like the Electoral College and the Senate, which gave more control to the upper class.

The statistic that made the biggest impression on me is that the top 1% own between 40-50% of the nation’s total wealth, while the bottom 90% have little or no net assets (Parenti, p. 29). This strict inequality challenges the widely believed myth of a thriving middle class. Most families may own some stocks or bonds, but their investments are minimal—often less than $2,000—while their debts and mortgages leave them with little real wealth.

This wealth gap has serious implications for society. With so much economic power concentrated at the top, corporations and the wealthy shape policies that serve their interests, often at the expense of workers. As Parenti argues, corporations are not true producers; rather, they are “organizational devices for the exploitation of labor and accumulation of capital.” The real producers are workers—the people whose labor, intelligence, and skills actually create goods and services. Yet, these workers see little reward, while capitalists claim they are “putting their money to work,” despite the fact that money itself does not work.

We see this dynamic daily—corporations make record profits, yet wages remain stagnant, and workers struggle to afford basic necessities. For example, major companies like Amazon and Walmart generate billions while their employees rely on government assistance. Similarly, the housing market demonstrates this inequality. Investors buy up properties, driving up rent prices while working-class families struggle to afford housing.

1-Means of Production and Labor: The means of production refers to privately owned, capitalistic production, such as tools, machines, factories, and materials necessary for producing goods. For example, a furniture factory and its machines are part of the means of production. Labor is the human part like effort experiences and skills that combine physical and mental that go into producing goods and services. For example, a factory worker operating a wood machine to produce furniture is performing labor.

2-Understanding Value: Depending on Marxist theory, value is measured by the necessary labor time required to produce a good or service. This means that something becomes valuable because of the labor that goes into making it under normal circumstances, rather than just its usefulness or rarity. For example, a handmade wooden chair takes more labor time to produce than a mass-produced plastic chair. According to Marxist theory, the handmade chair has more value because of the greater amount of labor required to create it. Thus, what makes something valuable is not just its material or usefulness but the amount of human labor invested in its production.

3-Labor and Value: Labor creates value. The more labor time it takes to produce something under standard conditions, the more value it holds in a capitalist economy. However, employers seek to maximize profits by paying workers less than the full value of what they produce. For example, if a worker produces a pair of shoes in two hours, and the employer pays them for only one hour of work, the extra value from that unpaid labor goes to the employer as profit. In short, labor is what gives value to commodities, but workers do not receive the full value of what they produce.

4- The difference between labor and labor power is crucial in Marxist theory: Labor is the actual work performed using that labor power to produce goods or services. Labor power is a worker’s capacity to work with the ability, skills, and energy they bring to a job. This is what a worker sells to an employer in exchange for wages. in short, labor power is what the worker sells; labor is what they do.

5- Surplus Value: in Marxist economics, surplus value is the difference between the value a worker creates through their labor and the wages they are paid. It represents the unpaid labor that generates profits for the employer. Surplus value explains how capitalists gather wealth while workers remain economically dependent. It reveals the exploitative nature of capitalism, where workers do not receive the full value of what they produce. Example of Surplus Value, a worker in a bags factory: the worker is paid only $100 for the day. They make 10 pairs of shoes in an 8-hour shift. Each pair sells for $50, meaning the total value of their work is $500.

C-M-C: Small-Scale Commodity Production: This represents the economic activity of artisans, farmers, and small producers who create goods (C: commodity) to sell (M: Money) to buy something they need (C). The main goal is use-value, meaning production is driven by necessity rather than profit. for example, A farmer works on his farm to produce vegetables (C), sells them for money (M), and then uses that money to buy food or other necessities (C). 

M-C-M’ represents the capitalist cycle, where money (M) is invested to buy commodities (C) to sell them for a greater amount of money (M’). Unlike small-scale production, which focuses on fulfilling personal needs, the primary objective of this process is to generate profit through surplus value. The difference between M’ (the increased money) and M (the initial investment) comes from the surplus value extracted from workers, as they produce more value than they receive in wages. This cycle allows capitalists to continuously accumulate wealth by reinvesting profits and repeating the process. 

M’ (More Money) represents the profit capitalists gain through the cycle of capitalist exchange, where money (M) is invested to buy commodities (C), and these commodities are then sold for a greater sum (M’). This profit comes from the surplus value, which is the difference between what workers produce and what they are paid. Workers generate more value than their wages, and this extra, unpaid labor time, called surplus labor, is the source of surplus value. Money becomes capital when it is invested in labor power and means of production to generate profit, with the key being the extraction of surplus labor from workers. Capitalists maintain and increase their wealth by using the profits (M’ – M) to reinvest in more production, expanding their wealth over time while paying workers only a portion of the value they create. For example, a company might invest $100,000 (M) to hire workers and buy materials, and after workers produce goods worth $200,000 (C), the company sells them for $200,000 (M’), making a $100,000 profit. This process repeats, continually generating surplus value for capitalists while workers remain dependent on their wages. Thus, capitalism relies on the continuous extraction of surplus value from workers, ensuring that the capitalist class remains wealthy while the working class sustains the system by selling their labor power. 

1- The distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees.

“Small businesses are just so many squirrels dancing among the elephants,” as Michael Parenti puts it in Democracy for the Few, underscores the imbalance of power between owners and employees in the capitalist system. The distinction between these two groups is rooted in their control over resources and their roles in wealth production. Owners, or capitalists, control the means of production, such as factories, land, or technology, and accumulate profits primarily through the labor of employees. Employees, in contrast, do not own these productive resources. Instead, they sell their labor in exchange for wages, often without much control over the conditions or outcomes of the work they perform. For example, a CEO or shareholder of a corporation benefits from the company’s profits, while a factory worker or service employee earns a set wage, dependent on the employer’s decision-making, rather than from ownership or control of the business itself. This creates a clear divide in economic power and wealth generation between the two groups.

2-UnderstandIing the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28:

Adam Smith says, “Labor… is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of
all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is
their real price; money is their nominal price only.” This quote emphasizes the central role of labor in determining the true value of commodities, arguing that labor is the ultimate and real standard by which we measure value. According to Smith, while money is the price we attach to goods in the marketplace, it is labor the effort and work that goes into creating, transforming, and distributing a product that determines its true worth.

3- Class as NOT an identity (Reading 4.4):

In Class Rules Everything Around Me by Paul Heideman, the main argument that class is not an identity challenges the common perception that class is simply a personal or social label that people identify with. Heideman argues that class is not about how individuals see themselves or the lifestyle they choose, but rather about their position in the larger economic system and the power dynamics that come with it. For example, a person may identify with a particular class, but this self-identification doesn’t change their position within the economic system. As a result, the argument encourages a shift from viewing class as an individual identity to seeing it as a reflection of one’s role and power within economic and social structures.

4- Class structures and “close form of dependency” (Reading 4.4):

The idea that class structures are built around a “close form of dependency” means that different classes in society, especially owners and workers, depend on each other. This dependency is close because the success of the owners depends on the work of the employees, and workers rely on the owners for their jobs and wages. However, this relationship isn’t equal. Owners have more power because they control the resources and wealth. For example, in a company, employers need workers to create products or services, while workers need their employers for a paycheck to live. Even though they rely on each other, owners have more control over the money and working conditions, while workers have less control over their wages and work environment.

1. The similarities and differences in how social class is discussed in readings 4.1 and 4.2.
   Both readings 4.1 and 4.2 explore the role of social class in shaping people’s lives, emphasizing how economic factors influence daily experiences and societal positioning. In both texts, social class is linked to income, education, and occupation, which collectively determine access to resources and opportunities. However, they approach the topic from different perspectives. The first reading examines social class through self-identification, explaining how individuals perceive their social standing based on personal achievements, financial stability, and professional status. It highlights how people’s understanding of their class position affects their sense of belonging and social mobility. The second reading, on the other hand, focuses on external markers of class, particularly through public transportation. It illustrates how wealthier individuals often have the means to avoid crowded and less efficient transit options. Meanwhile, lower-income individuals rely heavily on public transit, exposing them to longer commutes and additional daily challenges.
   2- Social class tends to live in your neighborhood. In Staten Island, having one or two cars is often more convenient, especially since public transportation like buses can be slower and less accessible compared to other boroughs. The layout of the island and the lack of a subway system can make it harder to rely on public transportation, so owning a car becomes a practical choice for many people. Based on the concepts from Reading 4.1, which talks about how social class is shaped by things like income, this is because many neighborhoods in Staten Island tend to have a mix of working-class families and middle-class people who rely on wages and may not have access to high levels of wealth or high-paying jobs.
   3- The general pattern of social classes in NYC, Reading 4.2 highlights a clear pattern of social class differences in NYC, particularly in access to and experiences with public transportation. Higher-income individuals often avoid crowded subway stations, opting instead for taxis, private cars, or other expensive transportation options. Their financial stability allows them to prioritize comfort and convenience, minimizing their reliance on public transit. In contrast, lower-income individuals depend heavily on the subway due to its affordability, despite facing longer commutes, overcrowding, and less maintained conditions. Additionally, subway stations in wealthier neighborhoods tend to be cleaner and less congested, while those in lower-income areas are often overcrowded and in need of maintenance. This pattern reflects broader social inequalities, where economic status determines the quality and accessibility of transportation. Wealthier individuals enjoy greater flexibility in mobility.