1. Williams contended that the War on Terror is radically different from wars as understood in traditional sense for it does not have borders, an enemy nation, nor endpoint. Wars that aspire to get the label “traditional” involve armies of two sovereign states, whereas the War on Terror is being waged against non-state actors: terrorism, which is a global phenomenon and not one confined to a mere corresponding territory. The new war is not just military combat: we are talking about intelligence operations, surveillance, and preemptive security works that clearly muck into civilian life. Further, traditional wars generally conclude with peace treaties or formal surrender; in contrast, the War on Terror continues forever, as terrorism is ideology-based and has no single enemy which one can conquer. This creates wars where there is no certain peace, with attendant ethical and legal issues around civil liberties, government overreach, and human rights.

2. Acceptance of the USA PATRIOT Act “Roving Wiretaps” is controversial for good reason. It greatly enhances governmental surveillance power in a manner that seems to violate the Constitution. In traditional Fourth Amendment practice, a warrant must specify the person, place, or device being monitored, thus ensuring that searches and surveillance remain targeted and justified. Roving wiretaps, however, allow authorities to monitor whatever phones or devices their suspect uses without naming these devices in advance. The critics claim this weakens Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by allowing surveillance with insufficient checks on that surveillance. Furthermore, within the First Amendment sphere, individuals will be under constant surveillance and will censor their speech and limit associations of which they would otherwise partake. That raises the alarm about government overreach into personal privacy affairs.

3. The USA PATRIOT Act, with its constitutionally questionable provisions, creates “Sneak and Peek” warrants that enable law enforcement agents to secretly enter property and search it without immediate notice. Notification of the individual being searched was a requirement under the traditional search warrant. The new warrants circumvent this requirement, providing for a delay of notification that might last indefinitely. This practice raises the specter of Fourth Amendment infringement, which guarantees protection against unreasonable search and requires notifying individuals of searches of their property. Without timely notice, individuals have no ability to challenge the legality of the search or to ensure their rights are respected. These warrants were proposed to be used in counterterrorism cases, with serious concerns of abuse thereof for all types of criminal investigations. Total lack of transparency and oversight regarding the use of this surveillance method, however, has raised serious concerns about government overreach.

1. The First Amendment holds the words of the “Establishment Clause”, which protects the government from enforcing an official religion or favoring one religion against another. It asserts the separation of church and state into religious freedom for individuals. The test famously known as “Lemon Test” is determined through the supreme court case of 1971 Lemon V. Kurtzman for judging if government action violates Establishment Clause. The test contains three last points: “first, the action must have a secular purpose (non-religious reason for the law or policy).” Second, neither advance nor inhibit religion as the primary effect. Lastly, the excessively entangled government with religious matters. Violation of any of these criteria amounts to unconstitutional action based on the Establishment clause.

2. Yes, burning the U.S. flag is covered under the First Amendment as symbolic speech, according to the 1989 Supreme Court ruling. In the case, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag during a political protest, and he was charged under Texas law for desecration of a venerated object. The Supreme Court decided, in a 5-4 decision, that flag burning constituted expressive conduct that, therefore, fell under the protection of the First Amendment regarding free speech. The Court went on to say that while flag burning may be offensive to many, political expression of such an act would be protected from the category of ‘fighting words’ or ‘incitement to violence,’ which are exceptions to the free speech protections

3. “I’m taking the Fifth” invokes the right for someone to refuse to testify as a witness in a legal proceeding in most cases with respect to their self-incrimination, as protected by the Fifth Amendment. The Amendment implies that a man cannot be forced to testify against himself and will avail many protections. One popular usage is before police interrogations, or more formally, before a court under conditions where the person’s answer to the question might inculpate him into a crime. By “taking the Fifth,” persons will not furnish information against themselves. This has been a fundamental safeguard of imparting justice in the United States legal system to prevent coercing testimonies

1. Citizens role differ depending on the system of governance operating in the nation. The different systems include federal, confederation and unitary systems. In a federal system, the governance and power is distributed on the federal and state level. Citizens can engage in a federal system by voting for their preferred President, members of Congress, on a federal level and also vote for mayors, state legislators, governors, city councils on a state and local level. This way citizens can elect members who will represent their choices and advocate for policies that they prefer. In a confederation system, individual states and local governments have maximum power reserved to them whereas the central federal government has limited control. Citizens have role to play in influencing local policies and laws which also implies that the legislations among states will differ significantly. Under a unitary system, the national government possesses most of or all of the power, and the local governments exist essentially as administrative extensions. The citizens mostly have contact with the national government since most of the decisions are made there and they just instruct the local governments. Local governments have not much autonomy and implement things on instruction by the national government. France and United Kingdom are examples of the unitary systems where local government powers are subordinated to the central government.

2. The division of power implies how power, control and authority is divided among the various levels of governance. In a federal system power is distributed among the national government and state or regional sectors. Each level has control over certain factors and responsibilities. The Constitution can outline the powers of the different levels. For instance, in the US, the federal government has control of printing of notes, taxation policies, national security etc. Whereas, the state government has control over enforcing environmental legislations, education, local law enforcement. In a confederation, regional or state governments possess the bulk of the powers, with the central government remaining weak. The central government takes action only if the states wish to relinquish some powers. The initial setup of the United States under the Articles of Confederation is an instance where there were limited powers for the national government, with states having great autonomy. In a Unitary system, most of the power is reserved to the central Government and the local governments have lesser or no independent power. Countries like United Kingdom and France operate on the unitary system.

3. The U.S. federal government intervened extensively in New York State’s efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic through economic support, public health policies, and emergency aid. The federal government provided funding in the form of relief packages like the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan. The funding helped with unemployed locals, stimulus payments, and assistance to state and local governments. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also covered temporary hospitals and emergency supplies. Public Health Guidelines: National government set up health guidelines through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which were followed by New York through placing restrictions on companies, public events, and wearing masks in some locations. New York sometimes went beyond national guidelines with more strict lockdowns and vaccination mandates. Cooperation and The federal government assisted in facilitating coordination among states. New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut formed a regional compact to implement standardized travel bans and quarantine policies for people arriving from high-risk states. Federal agencies like the National Guard assisted in creating mass-vaccination sites, such as the Javits Center in New York City, and distributing vital supplies. The pandemic underscored the way the federal government impacts state and local government action in terms of funding assistance, policy guidelines, and coordination to properly respond to national crises.

1. What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of?
The word “faction” in Federalist #10 reminds me of the module where we learnt about different social class and division of interests. We have learned previously, through readings and discussions, how different groups—whether by wealth, occupation, or region—have different interests and aims. A faction, Madison defines, is a group of citizens who have a common interest or goal. This group can be either a majority or minority of society. These groups are often at odds with the common good or with the rights of other citizens. This is with respect to social classes, where different segments of society have different economic interests (e.g., property owners vs. workers, or the wealthy vs. the disenfranchised), and those interests can often be against one another. In early America and today, they can create political unrest or legislation that unfairly serves one group at the expense of another.

2. According to Federalist #10, 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)?
In Federalist #10, Madison argues that wealth, or private property, is a result of the diversity of human faculties. “Faculties” refers to the natural capabilities, talents, and characteristics of individuals. The variety in faculties results in differences in capacities to acquire property and wealth. For example, there are individuals who possess the talent in agriculture, trade, or finance, whereas others have less capacity or opportunity to acquire wealth in these fields. According to Madison, the differences in these faculties result in unequal ownership of property and wealth. Some can gain large fortunes due to their faculties—education, expertise, or capital access—whereas others remain poor since they lack such opportunities. This view asserts that inequality is a natural outcome of human heterogeneity.

3. Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty ?
Madison’s explanation of wealth and poverty is based on the assumption that inequalities are natural due to differences in individual abilities. While this view is valid in the context of how societies have historically developed, it can be problematic when used to justify deep economic disparities. In modern society, the idea that differences in faculties alone explain wealth and poverty oversimplifies the many complex factors that contribute to social inequality. For example, systemic issues such as access to education, healthcare, inherited wealth, and discrimination often play a significant role in perpetuating poverty and limiting the opportunities available to certain groups. These structural inequalities aren’t just about individual faculties but also about the systems that disproportionately benefit certain groups, especially those with access to power or capital. Therefore, while Madison’s explanation may apply in some cases, it doesn’t fully account for the broader social and economic factors that affect individuals’ ability to accumulate wealth

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?

The first role of the U.S. government, as discussed in Federalist #10, is the protection of property. More specifically, Madison says that the protection of “different and unequal faculties of acquiring property” is the government’s initial purpose. That is, the government’s general goal is to safeguard citizens’ right to possess and own property, such as wealth, land, and personal property. This perspective is in line with the interests of the framers, namely the property-holding elite who had an interest in ensuring that their property and wealth were protected from foreign invasion as well as domestic upheaval (e.g., the threat of the rise of populist movements or poor factions). This responsibility of protecting property might sound very different from modern conceptions of the role of government. Nowadays, most people would contend that the central mission of the government is wider in scope, including promoting social well-being, economic fairness, and safeguarding civil liberties. For example, most contemporary politicians and activists believe that the government must intervene in the economy to alleviate poverty, ensure universal healthcare, fund public education, and end systemic inequality. These modern views voice a stronger interventionist function for the government in closing gaps and ensuring all members of society, not merely property owners, have access to opportunity and security. Madison’s view, by contrast, voices the ethic of a society that emphasized more the protection of property and wealth, particularly for the privileged, and was wary of government intervention that had the potential to disrupt the existing social hierarchy.

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?

Madison’s argument against a pure democracy and for a republican system of government has much to do with his anxieties regarding factions and class divisions in society. A pure democracy (his definition) would result in all citizens being directly involved in the government, which Madison feels would allow majority factions to impose their will on the minority. This would be destabilizing, with the passions and interests of the majority controlling the rights of property owners or other minority groups. Madison believed in pure democracy that factions would readily lead to “mischiefs,” such as mob rule, and could overlook the rights of the minority. A republic, or representative government, however, provides a screen through elected representatives, who are meant to be wiser and less in the grip of the passions of the masses. Madison argued this would be able to control the impact of factions by deciding through people who are less immediate in their interests and more responsive to the long-term public good. Madison’s rejection of direct democracy and support for a republic rest on the belief that the nation would have a more competent group of property owners who could make better choices for the nation, particularly the control of the various factions’ interests. This is directly tied to his idea of social classes—he feared that direct democracy would empower the lower classes (who were more likely to make demands that would undermine property rights or economic stability) and disrupt the balance of power and wealth. A republic, Madison believed, would provide a more stable government that could better address these social divisions.

1. Which social class wrote the Constitution, and which class was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process?
The social class that crafted the Constitution consisted predominantly of rich, land-owning elites—those with economic and political influence. As per Charles Beard in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, the framers were men with personal and economic interests. They were mostly rich merchants, big planters, and slave masters. For instance, the majority of of the southern delegates were plantation owners on a large scale who wished to maintain their financial interests, including slavery as an institution. Similarly, merchants and city elites in the northern states were represented because they wished for more secure commercial controls. Lawmakers were more interested in their own economic interests being protected by the Constitution which would prevent potential instability caused by debtor-relief policies or movements for equality endangering their fortunes.

Conversely, the disfranchised, were the white men with no property or land, slaves, women, and, to some extent, the working class. Most of the poor white men were disfranchised due to limited property qualifications and could not vote or hold office. In some states, disqualification on the basis of some property requirements deprived a large majority of the adult male population to be politically active. Enslaved people, who were a vital part of the southern economy, were also excluded from the process. In addition to this exclusion, the Constitution counted them as only three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation and taxation, withholding from them any meaningful political voice. Women where subjected to misogyny and discrimination which led to them having no representation whatsoever in the Constitutional Convention. Legal and social systems of the time limited women’s rights and ensured that their interests were not taken into account when the Constitution was drafted. The Constitution was framed to maintain the dominance of individuals who owned property and wealth and to establish an elite-governed system.

2. Would you say that the social class structure of early United States society was the same as ours today, or different? Explain.
There is a stark distinction between the social class structures present in Early America and the ones present now. The main difference has to be that in the past, political participation had been restricted to wealthy elites and landlords only whereas now, citizens, irrespective of their gender, color and ethnicity can be involved. Mechanisms like the electoral system and Constitution were designed by people who owned property or are rich enough while disenfranchising women, slaves, white males with no property, people from working class, so that the interests of the rich can be protected. Conversely, in modern American society, voting rights are for every citizen and it does not discriminate between the rich or poor. However, there is still definitely socioeconomic disparities arising from income inequality with the wealthier group of people having disproportionate power over politics in terms of lobbying and campaign contributions.

3. Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy?
The framers of the Constitution resented democracy because they were afraid that it would serve power and shift control from the wealthy elites to the lower class—those who do not own property. As Charles Beard elaborates, the Constitution was written by those who wanted to protect the interests of the property-holding class. They especially renounced the menace of insurrections or “mob rule” under which the disfranchised, and above all the debtor class and working poor, would be able to make demands on policy that assailed the economic order. Madison, for instance, in Federalist #10 worried about “factions” or groups which might act on their own interest to the harm of the public good and were generally driven by economic distress or class grievances.

In early America, the fear of democracy existed because elites were afraid the commoners would seek to redistribute money, or pass debtor-relief legislation that would harm the economic interests of the elites. Shays’ Rebellion, in which Massachusetts farmers protested paying taxes and debt collectors, was a demonstrated example of this threat. The framers were also concerned that these uprisings would destabilize the nation, and therefore designed a system intended to keep the power of the masses under control by mechanisms like the Electoral College and an indirectly elected Senate by state legislatures rather than by popular elections.

In the M-C-M’ cycle, the capitalists reproduce and amplify their wealth by investing money (M) in purchasing commodities (C), such as raw materials and labor, and selling the produced goods for a greater amount of money (M’). This cycle varies from C-M-C, which dominates in the working class where satisfy personal needs and not for profit. In C-M-C, a working class member can offers their labour as a commodity (C), receive money (M), and use the money to buy another thing they need (C). The reason for this is not profit but exchange of commodities for personal consumption according to the use-value of commodities. On the other hand, M-C-M’ is a capitalist circuit precisely aimed at the production of profits, where money is invested in buying commodities and sold for more money, thus generating surplus value.

M’ in the M-C-M’ circuit represents the surplus value or profit gained by the capitalists upon selling the commodities at a higher price than the cost of production. This profit is a result of surplus labor, in which the laborers produce more value than they receive in the form of wages. From the example of FashionThreads Inc., a producer of clothes, the laborers can be paid for 40 hours of labor but end up producing the equivalent of 60 hours of labor. The extra 20 hours of unpaid work provide surplus value, which the capitalist owner keeps for himself. The profit of the capitalist is the difference between money invested (M) and money received from the sale of commodities (M’). This is how money is transformed into capital: it is invested in labor and means of production, which, through the exploitation of surplus labor, produces added value.

The creation of surplus value relies to a great degree on surplus labor, where workers expend more labor time than that required to simply reproduce their wages. For instance, workers might labor 40 hours a week in the factory but only get paid for 30 hours of work. The remaining 10 hours of work, for which they do not get paid, are the surplus value appropriated by the capitalist owner in the form of profit. This surplus labor is necessary for the capitalists to maintain and increase their wealth because it leads directly to the generation of profits, which are reinvested in the cycle. As the capitalist reinvests the profits into production—buying more materials, more labor, and increasing operations—this cycle repeats to earn more money for the capitalist, while workers remain dependent on wages to survive.

Through this continuous cycle of M-C-M’, capitalists not only maintain their wealth but even increase it over time. The accumulation of wealth comes from the continuous extraction of surplus value from workers’ labor. By investing profit in more production, the capitalists secure the continual creation of surplus value, which allows their wealth to continue expanding. Through this, the capitalist class continues its financial supremacy, while the working class has no choice but to sell its labor power to ensure survival, in effect continuing the class divide. Thus, the capitalist mode of production relies on the exploitation of labor through the extraction of surplus labor to enable the accumulation of wealth by the capitalists.

1. Repressive State Apparatus (RSA)
   The Repressive State Apparatus refers to those institutions in society that enforce social order and control via force or compulsion. These include the police, the military, prisons, and the judicial system. Althusser calls them “repressive” because these institutions primarily function through the use of physical force or violence in an effort to control society and compel obedience to the laws and norms laid down by the state. That is to say, they are the weapons of suppressing resistances and maintaining dominations. Example:
A police force arresting a protestor who is seen as a threat to the state’s interests could be seen as the RSA in action. The police use force or the threat of force to maintain social order and discourage activities that challenge state authority.
2. Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA)
   Ideological State Apparatuses include those very institutions and practices whereby control through ideology is ensured-the shaping of beliefs, values, and norms. These are schools, churches, the media, and even family structures. They function through people’s consciousness, wherein dominant ideologies that support power relations in society are fostered. The ISAs do not use direct force but, instead, inculcate subtly ways of thinking and acting.
   Example:
A school system that teaches students the values of hard work and discipline, without accounting for broader social inequalities that may make success impossible for some to attain, is an example of the ISA. It doesn’t use force, but it indoctrinates the students with the idea that anyone can succeed if he tries hard enough. Therefore, this is a promoter of the certain ideological perspective.
3. Difference Between RSA and ISA The most critical difference between the Repressive State Apparatus and the Ideological State Apparatus lies in how this latter one secures such control. While the RSA usually applies itself through direct physical force, police, military forces, and others, the ISA shapes the belief and perception of the people through schools and mass media. More simply put:

• The RSA acts through coercion: using force to maintain control.
• The ISA acts through ideology: changing beliefs and values to maintain control. 4. There is a scene in the movie The Pursuit of Happiness where the protagonist Chris Gardner, despite his struggles in life, gets through it with hard work and determination. The theme of this movie sends a message that anyone can “make it” in America if they try hard enough, even in the face of extreme adversity. This would be an example of an Ideological State Apparatus at work. The film reinforces the dominant ideology in capitalism-that success is determined by personal effort and never considers social structures, class, or systemic inequalities.