According to MLK, the difference between a ‘just’ law is that is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An ‘unjust’ law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. Reading 13.1 states, ” To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.” (MLK 3) This example shows how MLK defines the difference between ‘unjust’ and ‘just’ laws in various examples.
Yes, I do believe these ‘unjust’ and ‘just’ laws shape the way society lives its lives. The reason I say this is because we have unjust laws at this moment just like throughout all history we have had a few minor changes, but a current unjust law we women are dealing with in some states is abortion rights, many women have unplanned pregnancies and are forced to keep their child. I understand that there can be many risks in doing abortions and can even cause deaths to those under the procedure but women should feel the need to be able to have rights. Unjust and just laws could affect politics Law is also how the government itself is structured, regulated, and controlled. Reading 13.1 states, “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” (MLK 3)
The most common ‘unjust’ law we have right now is Abortion. Abortion rights were taken away from women this year, Women deserve to have rights over their bodies and could decide whether or not they going to have a child. When will it be the day that women have the same equality as men, women have been fighting for their rights forever. As MLK would say An ‘unjust’ law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. A ‘just’ law is having the right to go to college at any age. MLK would see this as a ‘just’ law. “Any law that uplifts human personality is just.”
The Supreme Court decided in the Wal- Mart v. Dukes case that the 1.5 million female workers in Walmart could classify as a class action lawsuit because not all the 1.5 million female workers were “sex – discriminated”, denied equal paychecks, and denied a pay raise. In reading 12.2 it states, “Because the 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees were not all denied the same promotion, the same pay raise, or insulted, belittled, or obstructed by the same manager in the same store, their cases could not legitimately be litigated all at once.”Without some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together,” Scalia said, “it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims for relief will produce a common answer to the crucial question, Why was I disfavored.” (Tortorici 6)This example shows how the case takes a turn and does not have enough evidence to go forward because not all the women went through the same as Dukes. Another example in reading 12.1 states, “Bringing these numbers to life, Dukes offered damning anecdotes from the plaintiffs: women who were told by their managers to “blow the cobwebs off their makeup and doll up” if they ever wanted to advance in the company; or reminded that “God made Adam first, so women will always be second to men”; or asked if they wouldn’t rather be at home, raising their kids, than seeking out promotions—all while their male colleagues’ fatter paychecks were justified by the assertion that men were “breadwinners.” (Tortorici 2) This example shows how sexism is shown in the way they speak to women if they ask for a raise or promotion, and how easily they give their jobs to men when the majority of women stay for decades in their positions meanwhile men get promoted in the blink of an eye. The supreme court ruling didn’t favor Duke’s side and favored Walmart’s side because Duke may have been sex-discriminated and turned down to get an equal pay raise, other women didn’t go through the same situation so she couldn’t advocate for all 1.5 million female workers without sufficient evidence.
The Court System is better suited to protect the individual, than the elected branches of government because the elected branches of government are mainly focused on city and state issues and the Court system focuses on criminal and civil cases and is there to listen to individuals’ situations to come up with a better solution that can help the individual weather it’s an unfair decision or fair. An example of how the court system is better suited to protect the individual is reading 11.1 which states, ” Consider the case Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda, arrested for kidnapping and rape, which are violations of state law, was easily convicted and sentenced to prison after a key piece of evidence his own signed confession was presented at trial in the Arizona court. On appeal first, to the Arizona Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court to exclude the confession because its admission was a violation of his constitutional rights, Miranda won the case. By a slim 5–4 margin, the justices ruled that the confession had to be excluded from evidence because in obtaining it, the police had violated Miranda’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. In the opinion of the Court, because of the coercive nature of police interrogation, no confession can be admissible unless a suspect is made aware of his rights and then in turn waives those rights. For this reason, Miranda’s original conviction was overturned.’ This example shows how the court system didn’t take the evidence because the police didn’t read Miranda his 5th and 6th amendment and violated his constitutional rights the courts made sure that even if the person is guilty they don’t want an individual to have their rights violated and the courts won they had a strong case either way without the confession that was inadmissible afterward.
The Supreme Court judges are appointed by the president, I do not agree that they are anti-democratic the reason I say this is because reading 11.2 states, ” Presidential nominees for the courts typically reflect the chief executive’s ideological position. With a confirmed nominee serving a lifetime appointment, a president’s ideological legacy has the potential to live on long after the end of his or her term. President Obama surely considered the ideological leanings of his two Supreme Court appointees, and both Sotomayor and Kagan have consistently ruled in a more liberal ideological direction. The timing of the two nominations also dovetailed nicely with the Democratic Party’s gaining control of the Senate in the 111th Congress of 2009–2011, which helped guarantee their confirmations. But some nominees turn out to be surprised or end up ruling in ways that the president who nominated them did not anticipate. Democratic-appointed judges sometimes side with conservatives, just as Republican-appointed judges sometimes side with liberals.’ They have their reasons why they chose certain judges because some side with conservatives and some with liberals, so they want to choose someone that is neutral and won’t be favoring one side more than the other for issues within the government and public to be resolved. The Federalists #10 are similar to republicans in the way that they think they are a superior race and how they don’t like democracy. Democracy is in a way a good thing for our government because it will make everyone equal, whereas a Federalist party only thinks about their wealth and status. The people who wrote the constitution were so afraid of democracy. The reason the upper class(the wealthy class) was afraid of democracy was that they were worried that the power would be put with the wrong person. They were afraid because they knew that it would give the working class power over them. They didn’t believe in the working class would strive in this country.
According to P. Williams as she wrote in her essay that the war on terror is a new type of war because ‘the war of terrorism is a war of the mind so broadly defined that the enemy becomes anybody who makes us afraid.’ What she means here is that the war against terrorism is a war against a civilian enemy. It’s different from other traditional wars. After all, the war she is describing is a battle of the mind in which constantly had to look over our shoulders everywhere we go because anyone could be any enemy; for example, when you go to the train you don’t feel safe, I know I don’t feel safe I constantly feel like I have to be aware of my surroundings because this city is full of chaos and the traditional wars are like when countries be politically having wars because of land, the news is full of negativity with a crime in our society happening every day.
The ‘Roving Wiretaps’ of the Patriot seems to violate the Bill of Rights by violating the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment states, ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. The ‘Roving wiretaps’ violate that amendment because Civil liberties groups say the language of the Patriot Act could lead to privacy violations for anyone who comes into casual contact with the suspect. They want Congress to require investigators to specify just which device is going to be tapped, or that the suspect is identified, to protect the innocent from unwarranted snooping.
‘Sneek and Peek’ warrants allow for “delayed notice” of search warrants, which means the FBI can search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of the investigation. The Justice Department says this provision has already allowed investigators to search the houses of drug dealers and other criminals without providing notice that might have jeopardized an investigation. The ‘sneak and peek’ act also violates the 4th amendment because they are doing searches and seizures without an actual warrant to show the residents of a home or even a resident.
My understanding of the “Establishment Clause” is that the congress federal government is prevented by the first amendment from creating an official government-supported religion. The “Establishment Clause” means the government is prohibited from establishing a religion. In some countries government- favored religions like in Sri Lanka they favor Buddhism. In Iran, Islam is an official religion of the government supported by the government. In the United States, the government is not supposed to do that because there are different people in America, that follow different religions, They believe that if they had an official government religion it would discriminate against and disadvantage those who have other religions because they would be like they don’t have equality so to prevent this problem the clause prohibited the government from having a government establishing a religion. From my understanding, the lemon test was established by the Supreme Court from the case ‘Lemon v. Kurtzman’ which was to decide whether a law or other government action that might promote a particular religious practice should be allowed to stand. The lemon test as stated in reading 9.1, ” The Lemon test has three criteria that must be satisfied for such a law or action to be found constitutional and remains in effect: 1. The action or law must not lead to excessive government entanglement with religion; in other words, policing the boundary between government and religion should be relatively straightforward and not require extensive effort by the government. 2. The action or law cannot either inhibit or advance religious practice; it should be neutral in its effects on religion. 3. The action or law must have some secular purpose; there must be some non-religious justification for the law.”
The burning of the U.S flag is protected by the first amendment. The Supreme Court decided in Texas v. Johnson that burning the flag was a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment and found the law, as applied to flag desecration, to be unconstitutional.
“I’m taking the fifth” means you have the right to remind silent people have the right not to give evidence in court or to law enforcement officers that might constitute an admission of guilt or responsibility for a crime.
The primary differences between the role of citizens in government, among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems are in the Federal system citizens votes for representatives, in the Confederation system citizens have more power since this system relies on the local government, and the Unitary system citizens are mostly aren’t involved and let the central government control everything. The citizen’s role is influential under a unitary system because local opinions flow up the chain of command without any major obstacles between separation of powers.
My understanding of the system of division of powers is that there are 3 branches, The legislative, The executive, and the Judicial branch. The division of powers refers to the process of dividing government into different branches and giving different responsibilities and powers to each branch. The legislative branch works on making laws, The Executive works on signing laws, and the judicial branch decides wheater its constitutional or not, they each work together because it keeps everything balanced and the power isn’t overpowered because of how they organized the system.
The Federal Government may shape the actions of states and their local governments by attracting them with money in the forms of grants, financial aid, and other incentives. A state chooses to do something a certain way due to the financial compensation it will receive for doing so. Like during COVID-19 the government was giving out grants to students that could help them pay their rent, food, personal use, to help pay off their tuition, etc. They helped in a good way because many people found themselves without jobs and during that rough time the government helped them. Also, the government was giving out stimulus checks to parents so they can make ends me since we are part of the working class. The president is working on giving students the chance to have their loans forgiven which is something good because people struggle to pay these school debts all their life and this could help millions of students and reduce lots of anxiety because of the loan forgiveness.
Faction reminds me of a concept of social class. A faction is based on a small organized dissenting group within a larger one, especially in politics. A term the founders used to refer to political parties and special interests or interest groups. Faction reminds me of Different parties like Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Conservatives are examples of factions in today’s world.
According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), the source of wealth (private property) is a superior intelligence. The reason I say this is because Federalist #10 explains how they believe only in intelligent smart people, the ones that are born intelligent, the ones that are intelligent enough to find a way to become wealthy. Superior intelligence is caused by the person that is a member of the superior race. The superior race is very racist and we live in a racist society that apart from our origin, Race plays an important role in today’s society because it is one of the biggest influences played by racist beliefs in American society which is the difference between poverty and wealth. Some people are born into wealthy families and some are born into families that struggle to make ends meet and still have a good life.
I agree with the explanation of poverty and wealth because some people are raised in poverty because they are born into a capitalist community while the wealthy are born into riches that their past generation left behind. For example, the duchess and queens, dukes, and kings of the country are wealthy families. The working class gets exploited by the wealthy people (the owning class) to get credit for their work and make profits off of their hard labor which they exchange for money to help their family and to be able to make ends meet and be stable.
The core mission of the U.S Government is to make sure the wealthy get wealthier whereas the working people continue to struggle all their life to even make it past being in poverty. I think society hasn’t changed that much since their ‘first object’ because the government still thinks that way, during the presidential campaigns they always take about how they will make sure America has everything they need but immigrants and people in poverty still struggle; On one hand, immigrants can at least get DACA which permits them to study in college without getting in legal problems. But that’s only a small percentage The U.S Government’s core mission is always based on winning and having wealthy people take over politics because they are afraid that the working class might gain that power over them they make their fortune in real estate, corporations, and business off the work the working class exchanges for money.
No, I think Federalists #10 are similar to republicans in the way that they think they are in a superior race and how they don’t like democracy. Democracy is in a way a good thing for our government because it will make everyone equal, whereas a Federalist party only thinks about their wealth and status.
Based on the arguments presented in Readings 6.1 and 6.2, the social class that wrote the constitution was the upper class which is the Wealthy people(the owning class). The social class that was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process was the working class since they aren’t making over $40,000 annually you weren’t considered wealthy in their eyes. For the example from reading 6.1, ” the big landowners, merchants, and bankers exercised a strong influence over politico-economic life, often dominating the local newspapers that served the interests of commerce. ” It shows how the wealthy people were a strong influence on the political-economic life and they were more respected. In reading 6.2 it states, ” In no state had the working-class developed a consciousness of a separate interest or an organization that commanded the attention of the politicians of the time. In turning over the hundreds of pages of writings left by eighteenth-century thinkers one cannot help being impressed with the fact that the existence and special problems of a working class, then already sufficiently numerous to form a considerable portion of society, were outside the realm of politics, except in so far as the future power of the proletariat was foreseen and feared.” The lower class(the working class) wasn’t considered powerful during that time because they weren’t wealthy.
I would say that the social class of early United States society is the same as today’s social class. The reason I say this is because upper-class people still have the same opportunities to be heard politically and get lots of recognition but also lower-class people can be part of politics. The working class people have many more opportunities the government helps them with rent, food, etc.
The people who wrote the constitution were so afraid of democracy. The reason the upper class(the wealthy class) was afraid of democracy was that they were worried that the power would be put with the wrong person. As stated in Reading 6.1, “They were determined that persons of birth and fortune should control the affairs of the and check the “leveling impulses” of the propertyless multitude who composed “the majority faction” (majority class). “To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction,”. They were afraid because they knew that it would give the working class power over them. They didn’t believe in the working class would strive in this country.
The statistic on wealth inequality in the U.S that made the biggest impression on me was on page 29, it stated, “Capitalists like to say they are “putting their money to work,” but money as such does not work. What they mean is that they are using their money to put human labor to work, paying workers less in wages than they produce in sales. That’s how money “grows.” This made an impression on me because we are just viewed by them as nothing but a working class. what they get from us is surplus value is important to us because that’s how capitalism works, they hire you in jobs to increase the value of what you have and then they keep the extra value for themselves. The surplus value is how people are working at an office and you are done from your 9 – 5 pm shift and you finish at let’s say 1 pm you still have to use labor power and your boss is getting surplus value off of you which means the work you are doing those extra hours your bosses profit from them not you since they are still going to pay you the same wage for the labor you exchanged with them from 9 – 1 pm. We depend on so many commodities such as health care, electricity, phones, the internet, etc. If people didn’t work it wouldn’t be beneficial to our daily lives, because like I said we depend on people when we want fast food, go to the hospital, etc. Things are valued more when more human labor was put into them and it makes our survival possible as a society.
We are dealing with lots of implications living in this society that has huge wealth inequalities. Let’s start with college students there are lots of adults who can’t still manage to pay off their college debts and struggle to make ends meet if they don’t get a good job, even if they get a career job they still struggle to pay off college loans. Many people end up not wanting to go to college because they fear they will have to deal with college debts later on and I think some people just don’t want college debts affecting their credit if they want to buy a house or buy a car. An example of wealth inequalities in this society is how wealthy people get to go to yale I was watching a video that spoke about how some parents were paying the universities admissions extra for the kids to get a spot at that university and I think it’s unfair. The majority of wealthy people do act in unfair ways to get what they want for their kids in school. Like some wealthy students were even paying students to do their homework they shouldn’t have it easy just because they are wealthy they have to work twice as hard as the ones that work to get scholarships to go to the universities they want, they need to show that they care for their care as much as their parents made it possible for them to get in the schools.
The general formula of the capitalists is M-C-M’. M stands for money, the money you are using to buy your commodity not to use but for more money than what you bought the commodity for. C stands for commodities, and M’ stands to be wealthy, it’s like when you purchase a limited edition pair of shoes and you resell it for double the amount you purchased it for they get more profit from that product they get a surplus value. This formula helps capitalists maintain and increase their wealth if their money is transformed into capital; which means the capital money functions are based on the labor power that the capitalist buys off the workers and the same capital buys the means of production to enable labor power to function. The capitalist transforms money capital into productive capital which includes buildings, tools, equipment, raw materials, other supplies, and labor power. An example of how this formula helps capitalists maintain and increase their wealth is by a capitalist is to engage in the ongoing exploitation of taking advantage of a particular worker to maintain her wealth status. You don’t become wealthy by saving up, no you become wealthy by owning building properties, and having low-class working people (non-wealthy) help build your status because you become rich off of the work of others.
