1. In the video, Ruth Wilson Gilmore explains that racism and capitalism are deeply connected, which is why she uses the term “racial capitalism.” When she says capitalism would stop being racial capitalism once white people disappear from the story, I think she means that whiteness has historically been used to create advantages for some groups while exploiting and excluding others. Whiteness becomes tied to power, opportunity, and who society chooses to value more. Racism is not just about personal prejudice; it is also built into systems such as housing, jobs, education, and policing. Gilmore argues that capitalism benefits from inequality, and race has been one of the main ways those inequalities are justified and maintained. 
2. Gilmore argues that the prison system can actually create more “criminals” because prisons make it harder for people to successfully return to society. Once someone has a criminal record, they often struggle to find jobs, housing, education opportunities, and stability. Because they are constantly excluded and monitored, many people end up trapped in cycles of poverty and incarceration. Instead of solving social problems, the prison system actually deepens them. She also points out that society labels people as “criminals” permanently, which can shape how they are treated and how they see themselves. I do agree with her view to an extent because if people leave prison without support or opportunities, it makes sense that some may return to illegal activities just to survive. The system focuses more on punishment than rehabilitation, which can keep the cycle going.
3. From my understanding, when Gilmore talks about “liberation struggle,” she means collective efforts to create a society that is more fair, equal, and supportive instead of relying on punishment and oppression. She believes liberation is not only about ending prisons, but also about building better systems for education, healthcare, housing, and jobs so people actually have what they need to live stable lives. In the last part of the video, she talks about organizing, community action, and imagining new possibilities instead of accepting harmful systems as normal. To me, liberation struggle means people working together to challenge injustice and create long-term social change rather than only focusing on individual success. 

The Supreme Court, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, decided that the case could not move forward as a class-action lawsuit. This meant that the group of women who claimed gender discrimination at Wal-Mart could not sue together as one large class, and instead would have to bring individual claims or smaller, more specific group cases. The Court’s reasoning mainly focused on the idea of “commonality”, which is a requirement for class-action lawsuits. Commonality means that all members of the group must share the same legal issue and have suffered a similar injury that can be resolved through one common answer. In other words, there has to be a single question whose answer would apply to everyone in the case. The Court justified its decision by arguing that Wal-Mart’s employment practices were too decentralized, meaning that decisions about pay and promotions were made by individual managers rather than through a uniform company policy. Because of this, the plaintiffs could not prove that all women were affected in the same way. Overall, the decision shows that for a class-action lawsuit to be approved, it’s not enough to show that a lot of people were affected, there has to be strong proof that they were all affected in the same way by the same policy or practice.

I think the court system is better at protecting individuals because it’s more focused on interpreting the Constitution and protecting rights, instead of worrying about politics or public opinion. According to the Judicial Learning Center, federal courts specifically deal with cases involving constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and equal protection. Elected officials, like Congress or the President, might make decisions based on what voters want, even if it limits certain rights. For example, if a law was passed that restricted free speech, the courts could step in and declare it unconstitutional. That shows how courts act as a check on the other branches and protect individuals even when it’s not popular. I wouldn’t say the Supreme Court of the United States is anti-democratic, but I understand others reasoning in believing. Judges aren’t elected, so they don’t directly represent the people. But I think that’s actually the point. Since they aren’t worried about elections, they can make decisions based on the law instead of what’s popular. Appointing judges helps keep the system more stable and protects minority rights. So even though it seems less democratic, it’s meant to balance out the system and make sure decisions are based on the Constitution.

1. According to Patricia Williams in the Guardian article, the “war on terror” is different because it’s not a traditional war between countries with clear boundaries, armies, or battlefields. Instead, it’s a war against an idea or tactic—terrorism itself, not just a specific nation. It’s basically a war that blurs the line between foreign war and domestic policy, which is what makes it feel different.
2. The “roving wiretaps” allowed by the Patriot Act seem to violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. Normally, the government needs a specific warrant that clearly states what they are searching and where. However, roving wiretaps allow authorities to monitor a person across multiple devices without naming each one in advance. This lack of specificity makes it feel like the government has too much freedom to spy, and it could even lead to innocent people being monitored. 
3. Similarly, “sneak and peek” warrants are also controversial because they allow law enforcement to search someone’s home without immediately notifying them. This again raises concerns about the Fourth Amendment. Usually, people have the right to know when their property is being searched, but these warrants delay that notice. This means someone might not even realize their home was searched until much later, which takes away their ability to challenge the search right away. Overall, both roving wiretaps and sneak-and-peek warrants show how the government expanded its power after 9/11, but at the same time, they raise serious concerns about privacy and basic constitutional rights.

1. The Establishment Clause basically means the government can’t create or support a religion. It keeps a separation between church and state, so the government has to stay neutral and not favor one religion over another. The Lemon Test is something the Supreme Court made to decide if a law breaks that rule. It has three parts: the law has to have a non-religious purpose, it can’t promote or limit religion, and it can’t cause too much involvement between government and religion.
2. Yes, it is protected. In the case Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court said that burning the flag counts as “symbolic speech.” That means it’s a way of expressing an opinion, even if people find it offensive. The Court basically said the government can’t punish someone just because their expression makes people mad.
3. When someone says that, they’re using their Fifth Amendment right to stay silent. It means they don’t want to answer a question because it might incriminate them or get them in trouble. Basically, they’re protecting themselves from saying something that could be used against them in court.

1. In a confederation system, most power is held by the individual states or regions, and the central government is very weak. Because of this, citizens mainly influence government through their state or local governments, and the national government works indirectly through those states rather than directly with citizens. In a federal system, power is shared between a national government and state governments. Citizens participate in government at multiple levels, such as voting in national elections for federal officials and state elections for governors and legislatures. In a unitary system, most political power is concentrated in the central government. Local governments exist but only have authority granted by the national government, so citizens generally interact with and depend more on the central government for decisions and policies.
2. The division of power means that governmental authority is split among different levels or branches so that no single group has complete control. In systems like federalism, certain powers belong to the national government while others belong to state or local governments. Each area has its own responsibility and issues to focus on. This separation helps prevent the concentration of power and allows different governments to focus on different issues, such as national defense at the federal level and education or local laws at the state or local level. 
3. The federal government often shapes the actions of state and local governments through laws, funding, and national programs. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government passed several relief bills that provided billions of dollars to states and cities, which influenced how they responded to the crisis. An example would be how the American Rescue Plan provided about $12.75 billion in aid to New York State and billions more to local governments and organizations to support health programs, economic recovery, and public services. New York City also received about $5.8 billion in federal funds to support pandemic responses. Since the funding did some with a specific reason on how to use the money decisions directly influenced how New York’s state and local governments designed their public health programs and much more.

1. “Faction” reminds me of social classes and class conflict. Madison describes a faction as a group of people united by a shared interest that could go against others or the public good. That sounds like the conflict we read about between wealthy creditors and poor debtors. Different classes had different economic interests and fought over laws, which is basically what factions are.
2. Madison states that wealth comes from the “diversity in the faculties of men”. Faculties means people’s natural talents and abilities. He argues that because people have different skills and abilities, they end up with different amounts of property. So inequality, in his view, is “natural” because people are different. He also says protecting these unequal faculties of acquiring property is the “first object of government” meaning that framers believed that the governments main job was to protect property.
3. I partly agree, because people do have different talents. But I don’t think wealth and poverty are only based on ability. Social class, opportunity, and family background matter a lot too. The earlier readings showed that land, slavery, and laws helped certain groups become wealthy. So I think Madison’s explanation is too simple and doesn’t fully explain inequality.
4. The core mission of the U.S government is to protect peoples ability to gain and keep property. It doesn’t really surprise me because that’s something that’ve been going on for so long and I don’t believe that it should be the core mission but it’s definitely a mission that needs to be done.
5. No, I’m not surprised. Since most people back then were poor or propertyless, they could vote to pass laws against wealthy property owners. If the government’s main goal is to protect property, and society is divided into rich and poor classes, then pure democracy could be dangerous for the wealthy minority. Madison supports a republic because representation filters public opinion through elected officials. This makes it harder for the majority to unite and pass laws that harm wealthy property owners. Basically, Federalist #10 makes more sense when you look at it through the lens of social class. It’s all about preventing the propertyless majority from threatening the economic power of the wealthy class.

1. Based on readings 6.1 and 6.2, it’s pretty clear that the Constitution was written by members of the wealthy, propertied class. These were landowners, slaveholders, merchants, creditors, and investors are basically people who had major economic power. In 6.1 it explains how the delegates at the Constitutional Convention were mostly wealthy “gentlemen” who wanted a stronger central government to protect property and financial interests. In reading 6.2, it shows that most of the framers had economic interest in land, public securities, manufacturing and or trade. This makes it obvious that the upper, capitalist class had control over the writing of the Constitution. On the other hand, the class that was excluded was the working and propertyless class. This included small farmers in debt, laborers, indentured servants, enslaved people, women, and men who did not meet property requirements to vote. In the reading 6.2 these group of people where called the, “disenfranchised”, meaning they had no political voice. In the reading 6.2, he explains that only property-owning White males could vote in most states, which was a very small percentage of the population. Therefore the difference between the two classes is basically wealth and property. The wealthy class owned land, businesses, and investments and had political power. The lower class lacked property, were often in debt, and were shut out of decision-making.
2. I would say it’s both similar and different. It’s different in the sense that today, everyone over 18 can vote regardless of property, race, or gender, which was not true in the 1700s. Back then, voting was limited mostly to property-owning White men. So politically, we are more democratic now. However, the class structure itself is still similar in some ways. There is still a divide between the wealthy class and the working class. In early America, small farmers were heavily in debt and struggling while creditors and land speculators had economic power. Today, there still is economic inequality, student debt, housing struggles, and corporations having major influence over politics. Wealthy people and large businesses still shape laws through campaign donations and lobbying. Even though voting rights expanded, economic power still creates unequal political influence, just like it did in the past.
3. The people who wrote the Constitution were afraid of democracy because they feared majority rule would threaten the wealthy minority. From a class perspective, they were worried that the propertyless majority, especially poor farmers and debtors, would use political power to cancel debts, redistribute property and more. Events like Shays’ Rebellion showed them that lower-class citizens were willing to rise up against economic injustice. Their fear wasn’t only about chaos, it was mostly about protecting wealth. They believed democracy could allow the lower class to overpower the upper class. It would simply threaten the economic interests of the wealthy class who were writing the Constitution in the first place.

1. The statistic on wealth inequality in the US that stood out the most to me was how the top 1 percent of Americans own between 40-50 percent of the nation’s total wealth. This made the biggest impression on me because it shows just how concentrated wealth really is. It means that most people are sharing a very small portion of resources while a tiny group controls a huge share. Viewing that really shows how inequality feel less like a small gap and more like a structural divide in society.
2. Living in a society where there’s such large percentage of wealth, inequalities can affect opportunities, stability, and power. When wealth is concentrated at the top, it means that people with less money have fewer chances of improving their situation. It can also affect access to education, healthcare, housing, and much more. It also makes it harder for people to move up socially because those at the top have more resources to protect and grow their wealth. I definitely see this dynamic in everyday life. For example, you can see luxury buildings and expensive developments going up while many people struggle to afford rent or basic necessities. Another example would be education. Students who come from wealthier families often have more support, tutoring, and fewer financial worries, while the lesser families, have to work long hours just to stay in school. These everyday situations show how wealth inequality isn’t only numbers, it also shapes people life chances and experiences as well.