1. In the case of Betty Dukes v. Walmart Stores Inc, the Supreme Court decided in favor of Walmart based on two legal concerns that the Court had to consider. The first concern was mainly ruled on procedural grounds, as the class action’s multiple demands placed their class into two different class distinctions, which in turn jeopardized its total standing as a class entirely. Since it was very cut and dry, the Supreme Court ruled on this unanimously. The second concern was more nuanced. In a 5-4 ruling the court made the determination that the class action did not meet the commonality requirement, which means that there has to be “questions of law and fact” that the entire group being represented in the class share. In this case, the Supreme Court determined that the class had to share common problems and solutions to the problems. Because the class was so large in size and each individual in the class had varying/different levels of wrongdoing, the majority of the Court stated no solution could be legitimately be ruled on the plaintiffs at the same time.

1.There are a couple different reasons why the court system is better suited to protect the individual rather than elected officials in government.  First off, one of the primary goals of the court system is to ensure an individual’s constitutional rights. Since the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, it allows the people to have an independent party protecting their constitutional rights, particularly against Congress. An example of this is the case of Marbury v. Madison. (1803), which happened to be the first instance in which the courts ruled an act against Congress had been deemed unconstitutional.  Another reason is the fact that the court system can delve more deeply into individual cases in order to rule on any given decision/case.  With Congress, a lot of the time the decisions or laws that are made are done on a broader level, thus increasing the chances of individual’s rights being abused by Congress.

2. I could see how someone would think that the Supreme Court could be an anti-democratic part of the government, but I do not believe that to be the case. I do understand that they are not elected by the people, however Supreme Court justices do have to be vetted and approved by a majority of Senators, whom are elected to represent the people who voted for them in their state. Although the court has a tendency to lean one way or the other ideologically, their use of precedence allows them to be contrarian to those ideologies if need be, which in turn is pro-democratic in nature. I do believe that the process was set out to be this way was to keep some sort of power within government. The constitution evolved over time to give citizens more rights and control within society. With that being the case, this practice was created to keep some of the power within the government, even at the expense of creating a separate entity that would inevitably keep said government in line.

1. There are some distinct differences in the roles of citizens in government when it comes to the federal, confederation, and unitary systems. With the federal system, the people are given the power to elect representatives on the state and federal level who have the authority to govern. With a confederation system, the authority of government was mainly sent to the states, and as a result, the role of citizens varied based on what state you lived in. With a unitary system, the authority stayed with the national government, to which citizens had no say in government whatsoever.
2. The system of division of power refers to the splitting of roles, responsibilities, and categories within a government. For the majority of the time, these distinctions are placed within each branch of government so that each branch knows what policies they are charge of and what power they have in order to its citizens to be prosperous and thrive. It also separates the power given to officials on the state and federal level.
3. The federal government can shape the actions of state and local governments in a variety of ways. For starters, the federal government can provide funding for states in emergencies/times of crisis, whether it be FEMA providing emergency funding for hurricane relief, or stimulus relief during the COVID-19 pandemic. The state government in turn can allocate and distribute those funds directly and efficiently to its citizens. In times of crisis, it is also important for the collaboration of federal and state government in order to guarantee optimal conditions/results for its citizens. With the pandemic and NYC, there was assistance on the federal level when it came to ventilators, medical professionals/equipment, and COVID-19 tests. How those and other things were collected and distributed throughout the city could not have been done without cooperation between the federal and state government.

1. Based on readings 6.1 and 6.2, it is clear that the social class responsible for writing the Constitution were the Upper class (i.e the most rich and wealthy). The class most excluded from participating in the process was the working class. First off, the Upper Class created the Constitution to give more power to the central government, which at that time was comprised of wealthy property owners and the like. By doing so, it would be able to regulate the distribution of property and wealth to keep it in the hands of the upper class. Second, they felt an uprising within the working class and the other lower classes of society, therefore created the Constitution as a means to keep peace. Reading 6.1 states that very early on. It says, “…a constitution was much needed ‘to contain the threat of the people rather than to embrace their participation and their competence’ ” (M. Parenti, 6). This reasoning by George Washington gives a clear understanding of why they would not want the working class to take place in contributing to the Constitution, as it would allow the working class to gain more power and facilitate the spread of wealth within social classes.
2. The social classes of early United States have some similarities as social classes today, as their are differences also. In a general sense, in early America each social class had sub groups that had different characteristics within that social class. That is still true today, as there are varying degrees of wealth within each social class. One main different back then was that women and minorities were not even allowed to own money or property, therefore there was less fluctuation from one class to another. Nowadays, there are plenty of women and minorities that are in the upper class, as well as people going from one class to another.
3. The writers were afraid of democracy for two main reasons. One, it would allow for the distribution of wealth between all classes, which in turn would take away that wealth from themselves (i.e the upper class), which went against their fundamental belief that the wealthy should be allowed to keep their wealth. Two, democracy would allow lower social classes more control/a say in government, which in turn would fundamentally change how society would function. Back in those days, the government was full of upper class individuals creating policy and laws that would benefit only those in government. Allowing other classes to take part in government would change that dynamic, and again would contradict what they deemed as appropriate in their form of governing.

1. The main similarity between both articles is how they both use income/wealth to point out the disparities between the highest level of wealth and the lowest level or wealth for individuals and how that shapes how and where someone may live. The differences between the two articles is how 4.1 focuses on many different variables to which one may identify within a social class (subjective class) as well as the variables in which most people are placed within a social class (objective class). The article gives specific examples of some of these variables (i.e income, education, family background, age, etc) and how each variable may influence where one may fit (or where they think they fit) into a particular class. Article 4.2 has a simpler approach to simply use median income in a particular location to make distinctions as to how income defines social class as well as to highlight how most locations in NYC have inhabitants that have similar income levels and in turn more than likely fit into the same social class based on income and wealth.

2. The closest stop to my apartment is on the 6 train and it is Westchester Square- East Tremont. The median income level is around $32,000. Using the chart from 2.1, the majority of the neighborhood has individuals who would fit into the working and middle class. Those two classes make up at least 75% of the population. I am a little surprised but not really, because on one hand the section of my neighborhood is more of an affluent neighborhood (Throggs Neck), so I did believe the average income would be a little bit higher than $32,000. That being said, I have seen some streets along the East Tremont area that do stretch to some areas that aren’t as developed as where I currently live, so it was not a complete surprise.

3. The reading pretty much confirmed what I kind of already knew (assumed to be true), which is the majority of the middle upper to upper class tend to migrate to parts of Manhattan (specifically the lower east side). There are large blocks of lower to working class citizens live in parts of Brooklyn and The Bronx. It sheds a light on how most of these locations do not have a large range of income levels, meaning in most cases people with similar income and wealth levels tend to live in the same areas of the city, with some exceptions of course.

1. The distinction made between owners and employees in the article is that owners have large amounts of money and are able to comfortably live off of the work of others, whereas employees live off of their own labor to try to attain some of those same benefits, to a lesser degree. An example would be a CEO of a company that is able to gain profits from investments and the work of his company to sustain their wealth. The lower level call center representative in that same company works off of his own labor and has to live paycheck to paycheck to provide for their family.
2. I take Adam Smith’s quote on page 28 to mean that no matter what the price of something may be, the true value of a product or service being provided is the work that was put in as well as the process that takes place to get to the final result. When linking it back to labor, he is trying to make the point that there is a direct correlation between higher profit and labor. If the quality of work being done to produce a certain item or service is high, one’s profit and wealth will rise as a result of the labor being put in.

1. I believe there are a few reasons why the politicians of the South decided to frame their defense of racial segregation through the disguise of “Law and Order”. For one, it was a rallying cry for so many of its white citizens in the South that had vehemently opposed civil rights legislation in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education, thus gaining support with their beliefs and therefore growing its base. Second, the politicians were successfully able to correlate a rise in crime within their society with the rise of civil rights activism. They painted a picture that Law and Order was needed to combat the threat that blacks would bring as a result of them wanting equal rights.
2. The Southern Strategy is for sure being used today. Look no further than the former President Donald Trump. For starters, the phrase “Law and Order” was a huge slogan for his campaign in 2016 and continued to use it all through his presidency. He also is a huge supporter of strict immigration policies. He (as well as others within his party) believe there is a direct correlation between illegal immigration and violent crime and poverty in the United States and uses dramatic words and imagery to make his points. One could argue that people with anti-immigration beliefs ultimately believe in some sort of segregation for reasons only they could know.