1. Parenti describes owners as those whose income “comes mostly from the labor of others”, whereas employees not only have to work, but compensation they receive for the value they generate (for owners) are vastly disproportionate. Parenti gives an example where the average private sector employee works 2 hours for themselves versus 6+ hours for the owner/employer.

An example of an owner would be a large corporation like Amazon. Amazon’s income is derived from the physical goods made from others, marketed and sold by employees, shipped by others, etc. Amazon itself doesn’t make or sell anything, yet receives the vast percent of income generated from said workers.
Employees would be the people who do the work of making the goods, marketing, selling, shipping/distributing said goods, but who receive a disproportionate wage from the value of the work done in order for Amazon to make their profits.

2. I’m likely off the mark, but I read that quote as Smith saying there’s no value in any commodity until the labor is accounted for. From the initial stage of making a thing, delivering the thing and getting someone to buy the thing, none of that is possible without labor and thus, labor is the first item of value.

3. I’m in agreement that class is not an identity. To compare class with sex or race, unchangeable traits people are born with, class is an ascribed status by whatever society has deemed it to be, it is a social construct.

4. To risk oversimplifying again, I interpret the idea of class structures are built around dependency as those who have the most can control those who don’t (or have less). If food and water, the bare minimum needed for basic survival, are resources owned by and/or distributed by a corporation or someone wealthy, they can control the flow, location and pricing of these to those that need it. Since everyone needs food and water, that dependency makes them vulnerable to the whims of the owners, who can then also control who or how many people to hire to grow the food, ship and distribute the food, now also creating a dependency for employment

1. Since the link for 4.2 wasn’t working and thus unavailable to read, I focused on what stood out to me from the 4.1 reading. I was a little surprised by the findings that those among the lower and upper classes both don’t think of themselves as part of those classes. While the sample size of participants may not be extensive, I still think it speaks to the greater perception of what may even be considered upper and lower classes, as demonstrated in video about wealth inequality. The distribution of wealth is so lopsided, with the 1% holding over 40% of wealth, those in the bottom and upper classes have a distorted view of their socioeconomic standings, that they are actually worse off than they realize, which potentially plays into why little or no action is done to try to improve things.

2. The data is a little skewed in my neighborhood, the Lower East Side. There are significant extremes of both lower/poor class mixed with upper/wealthy classes. This is not surprising to me since the Financial District is closeby and there are many luxury buildings within walking distance of housing projects, which is where the wide disparity comes from.

1. To attempt to answer this question is the crux of modern societal debate so at the risk of sounding like I’m copping out, I will try to keep my reply within the scope and confines of Gilmore’s comments about early Eurocentric society. Gilmore remarked that historical European societies were already perpetuating slavery and racism among those same societies/countries, which has only been exacerbated in their descendants that are now commonly thought of as “white” and the era of colonialism. While not unique to European colonialism, racism and slavery of other race was most widely spread by “white” Europeans, of which the effects are still felt today. When these beliefs and practices are so intrinsically tied to a culture and continually practiced and repeated through generations it becomes so closely associated with their identity(ies) it is near impossible to separate, much less change.  

2. According to Gilmore, new ‘criminal persons’ are created by those in power by reclassifying what is considered criminal, and the prison systems, or rather the expansion of prisons, is one of the factors that influence the creation of new criminals. The combination of racism and capitalism play a part in that process; the criminalization of marijuana as a notable example. I agree with Gilmore in this instance.              The criminalization of marijuana stemmed from a way to deter or repress Black populations from voting in the Jim Crow era South, as it was a common activity among that demographic. Racism can be considered as the top contributing factor, ‘creating’ new criminals which are now sent to a growing prison system, feeding the capitalist part of this process.

3. I interpret ‘liberation struggle’ to mean the fight against capitalism and slavery in the modern form, which Gilmore posits is cause and effect, respectively. While racism is tied to more than just capitalism, the struggle in modern day is now raising awareness and continuing to show how they are linked with a presumed end goal of eliminating capitalism as a form of society. The liberation is not just limited to non-whites, it is for any society that practices capitalism and as such, the struggle isn’t limited to any one race or people, it is meant to allow any and all societies to reject it.

In Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court first ruled unanimously against Dukes based on a procedural issue. Because the case was seeking monetary damages, the Court ruled the case must have been filed as a “b(3)” claim under Civil Procedure rules; the case was filed as a “b(2)” claim. The Court also ruled 5-4 against Dukes on the matter of “commonality”; that a class must not only share a common problem but also a common solution.  To paraphrase, because not every woman suffered the same exact level or kind of discrimination, it would be impossible to determine or propose the same exact solution for all the aggrieved parties in the case. The irony isn’t lost that all the Justices that ruled in the majority were men.

1. That there are potentially multiple courts to plead a case gives individuals a better chance to have their matter heard, whereas elected branches serve in a manner to establish policy(ies) that have broader or general effects. In the matter of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court’s role was to decide whether Miranda’s Constitutional rights were violated or not, not whether he was innocent or guilty of the crimes. While we know the ultimate fate of Miranda, the Supreme Court’s existence allowed for him to challenge and ensure that in the course of his legal proceedings, they were done so while maintaining his rights were preserved. A President, Mayor or Congress offer no such avenue.

2. This is not a simple stance to argue. One could argue because the People elect a President and Congress members, any judge appointed and confirmed to federal and Supreme Court is also the People’s choice by extension, ergo democracy at work. However we can see that in practice, judges all the way up to the Supreme Court level seemingly appear to rule along party lines more often than not; that is they generally reflect the believes or views of their appointor, which on the surface level would be anti-democratic. A judge is presumably supposed to rule objectively on a literal case by case basis. One can presume judges are appointed this way to keep the status quo; if there are enough judges in enough courts, then any challenges to a President’s or any particular’s administration would likely have a higher chance of defeating any challenges in court.

1. The establishment clause is one of the protected freedoms which prohibits Congress and state governments from creating or promoting a sponsored religion, which includes favoring any one religion over another, including appearing to favor religion over non-religious beliefs. The Lemon test is a set of criteria stemming from the Lemon v. Kurtzman case, which establishes 3 standards that must be met in order for a law to be considered constitutional and allowed to stand (criteria listed in section 4.2 of the textbook).

2. Burning of US flags is protected by the First Amendment, as determined by the Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson. The Supreme Court ruled that the burning is considered a form of symbolic speech and is thus protected.

3. “Taking the Fifth” is commonly understood as any person invoking their rights protected by the Fifth Amendment, specifically the part stating “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”, which in regular vernacular typically means a person cannot be a witness/testify against themselves when on trial.  

1. There are a few angles one could take to answer, I’ll start with the “war on terror” as a concept. As Williams says, A war against terrorism is a war of the mind, so broadly defined that the enemy becomes anybody who makes us afraid.” There is no defined enemy or place or resource to fight over, it’s a war that is so broadly defined it can be manipulated to suit the government’s purpose. That so many of Arabic ethnicity and Muslim faith have been targeted, one can argue this is could be seen as a war of ideologies or a religious war.

Taking it further, the manner of which the war is being waged is new in that many of the rights protected by the Constitution are either worked around by loopholes, such as the military tribunals or just flat out ignored, unprecedented compared to how wars were engaging in the past. Williams closes with a foreboding (maybe prophetic) note, observing the increased support (or at least nonplussed) view of the general public in the erosion of these rights.

2. Most notable to me is the violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects “against unreasonable searches and seizures”. As Morton Halperin, a National Security expert describes, government intelligence can now “wiretap you and never tell you, search your house and never tell you, break into your home, copy your hard drive, and never tell you that they’ve done it.” Based on the Patriot Act’s provision, if a suspect borrowed your phone to make a call, your device would fall under the roving wiretap’s monitored devices, presumably in perpetuity. I would argue that would be considered unreasonable and in violation of the 4^th  

3. I also argue Sneak and Peak warrants would violate the Fourth Amendment, also on the “unreasonable” nature to perform a search and seizure. If the Patriot Act allowed for delayed/secret searches of suspects for any crime, no matter how minor, that would mean every crime would be considered reasonable; what would be deemed an unreasonable search and seizure then?

1. A primary difference in the role citizens have among federal, confederation and unitary systems would be the amount of influence they have on shaping that government. In a federal(ist) and confederation system, citizens would typically vote for candidates that represent their interests, which is particularly the most powerful in a confederation since the local governments would likely supersede a national government. Conversely, in a unitary system, citizens play the least or no role, as a central/national government holds the most influence over any local governments.

2. Division of power is meant to keep any single branch of power from having full authority/unilateral influence over a wide government. Each branch is meant to keep the others in check by making sure there are limits to what they can do; the absence of these checks and balances would liken a government resembling something like a monarchy where a single branch makes all the decisions.

3. One of the biggest factors during the COVID-19 pandemic from the federal level was the number of grants provided to the state/local levels. During the lockdown, nearly every single state suffered economic downturn due to quarantine procedures yet health, emergency and food industries were still expected to operate. Although not every state received equal funding, one can argue that without federal grants, more people would have died or be a victim to more drastic consequences.

On the other side of the coin, the delay of action, information and safety guidelines meant some states adopted their own measures, particularly when it came to vaccines. Without a cohesive health plan and recommendations, local governments implanted their own plans and requirements for vaccinations among their populace.

1. I don’t mean to be facetious but if you were to replace “faction” with “class(es)” in Federalist #10, the meaning of the entire work reads the same with no loss of meaning or intention.

2. I interpret “faculties” to mean birthright here, specifically those of affluent white backgrounds that gives them the right to own land/property, which may come to a surprise to some, but Madison and the framers seem to all have this same background.

3. I disagree since their interpretation is not much different (if at all) from monarchies, that the ruler or ruling class is rooted in lineage and royalty. Whatever wording the framers want to use makes it no different.

4. Madison writes “The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.”, that is to protect the birthright(s) of the gentlemen class, which is not surprising. The initial purpose and motivation of the framers is to not only preserve what they have, but to ensure any threats to their status is eliminated before it can realistically threaten them. To compare it to modern day US government, there is the public facing messaging, that democracy is meant to serve the greater good/will of the majority, but in practice, we can observe how tax policy ultimate still protects those that have come into those positions, primarily through generational wealth, which can be traced back to the framers’ era.

5. As I’ve commented prior, Madison and the framers are primarily motivated by preserving their status and wealth and a democracy would give the rest of the factions (classes) power to threaten such. I am not surprised in the slightest given how we are still seeing the effects play out in our society today.