1.Ruth Gilmore says that capitalism will stop being racial capitalism, when all the white people disappear from the story. What’s the connection between “whiteness” and racism, do you think? 

In the assigned video we learned that capitalism was racial from the very beginning of its development. The term “racial capitalism” explains that capitalism is based on the exploitation of labor, as well as the social and economic value of those in marginalized communities pertaining to their race. This practice requires inequality and racism. It impossible to remove racism unless you completely reconstruct the idea of capitalism. As Ruth Gilmore states, “capitalism will stop being racial capitalism when white people disappear from the story.”  

This has a great deal to do with the fact that slavery, enforced by Europeans, is one of the chief influences of the creation of the modern world. If we look at the history of those who own production and compare it to those whose labor they exploited, we can recognize this as a racial practice. What is also important to mention is that during the rise of capitalism, white Europeans began to group people based on their race. Therefore, the idea of racial supremacy and hierarchy is built within the system, and we continue to use these methods within capitalism to this day.  

There are several connections between whiteness and racism, particularly in this country. Normalizing whiteness and white racial identity in the United States is the reason those of minority backgrounds may be seen as inferior. Furthermore, America awards countless benefits to white people because we are a part of a white-dominant society. People who identify as white very rarely have to think about their race because it is accepted throughout United States culture. However, those who are not white constantly think about their racial identity because of the systemic racism that exists all over the world.  

Additionally, the majority of white people have political and economic power throughout the country. As a result, white people receive more social and economic advantages than people of minority backgrounds. Moreover, due to the “criminal” stigma placed on people of color, minority groups live in constant fear of the police. There are many documented incidents of unjust shootings in the black and brown community. This is an issue that is not prevalent for white people. It is what has come to be known as “white privilege” which is something people who are white, or white passing, have benefited from due to the color of their skin.  

However, whiteness is not a race at all, but a social construct. The meaning of whiteness has changed throughout history. The notion of race was designed to keep black and white people separate in the work force. It was also a tool used to define their differences to highlight “white superiority.”  Whiteness now includes a variety of cultures that it had not previously. These characteristics connected to whiteness are actually connected to control and privilege which are used to preserve unjust social hierarchy.  

2.Gilmore makes the point that criminals are actually being created by the criminal justice and prison system (she says “the category of ‘criminal person’ can be perpetuated”). According to Gilmore, how does that happen, how does the prison system create new “criminals”? Do you agree with her view? 

In the United States there is an ever-growing mass incarceration problem that goes hand in hand with widespread capitalism. According to Gilmore, the prison systems rely on the surplus of criminals. The elites who own those prisons use their skills to achieve this. For a prison to be successful there needs to be a constant flow of people who can be categorized as criminals. Over time that group of people must grow or the people in jail have to remain there for longer periods of time. As a result, what qualifies someone as a criminal gradually has to change, as well as the length of their prison sentences. When they return home, they have the challenging task of learning how to acclimatize themselves to society. It is a challenging mission to accomplish because once you are in the system it is hard to get out. They have to return home, look for a job, and become part of a community, and when they fail, they are sent back to prison. According to Gilmore, this is how the category of “criminal” is perpetuated.  

I agree with Gilmore’s assessment about how the prison system changes the definition of criminal acts to create new criminals. We live in a society where we have the largest percentage of mass incarceration in the world. Although crime rates have not increased, our prison population has expanded dramatically in the past several decades. These increases can be linked to law and policy changes directly attached to the role of race and racism in America. We resort to throwing people in prison, especially those in minority groups, rather than addressing the issues that cause the crimes in the first place. These new laws contribute to the overcrowding of prisons. This is despite the evidence that the surge in incarceration has no correlation to lowering crime rates, nor does it boost public safety. As we learned in the very beginning of the semester, mass incarceration in the United States stems from the response to the “War on Crime” and the “War on Drugs” that started in the 1970s. Nixon and Reagan implemented policies meant to stop drug abuse and take criminals off the streets. However, these laws gave states the money to create more over-populated prisons. It is a problem that has been going on for over 50 years. In order to begin to solve this issue, we need to re-think what constitutes a crime and stop writing laws that directly and negatively affect minority populations.  

3. Describe how you understand what Prof. Gilmore – in the last part of her video – calls “liberation struggle”? 

A liberation struggle is an organized rebellion against a group of oppressors to secure their freedom. This struggle, as stated by Gilmore, is specific to the needs and struggles of the people depending on their location. This struggle is a type of social movement that aims to achieve either territorial independence, the right to political, cultural, and social autonomy, gaining individual rights for specific country, nation, racial, or ethnic group of people. They generally strive to free themselves from dominant organizations of people or distinct types of discrimination.  

Gilmore brings up the people of Amadora, which is a municipality in Portugal. They were living in a community of homes that were self-built and were under threat of losing them because their homes were not up to code. Even though they were promised new homes they wanted to stay in their old ones because it not only supplied them with resources but offered them a community. Upset that they were being targeted, the people of Amadora began to organize themselves to save their entire community. They developed study groups so they could learn about why they were vulnerable in the first place, how their government works, the history of colonialism and racism, and the history of their citizenship in the E.U. These were all used as mini universities in which they educated themselves. There are many varied factors and processes in which people can come to a fair decision through a liberation struggle. It is used to gain solidarity and allows others to become dependent upon their community to solve major economic and social issues.  

1. What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what this legal term means, as it is key to the court’s decision). 

A lawsuit was filed against Walmart in 2001 which included 1.5 million female workers. This case accused the company of systemic gender discrimination, stating that they paid women who worked at Walmart significantly less than men. The company continuously passed over women for promotions, which is considered a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is a law that prevents employers from discriminating based on race, creed, or gender. However, when the case concluded in 2011, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the court had ruled in favor of Walmart. He explained that the court’s decision was because the opposing side had failed to prove that the class did not have issues of law or fact in common. He justified this ruling by maintaining that in order to claim “commonality” the class in question needed to have both a common problem and a common solution to that problem. This was so it could equally reimburse all 1.5 million women at the same time. His rational was that all the women represented in this case did not lose out on the same promotion or raise, nor were all mistreated in the same way, they could not conduct this case including all the women at once.  

Even though these women didn’t experience the same discrimination and asking for damages might have contributed to their loss, this had extraordinarily little to do with what the case was originally about. Additionally, it had seemed as if Scalia took some liberties with his phrasing, resulting in women, who have been historically discriminated against for hundreds of years, losing the case on a technicality. The goal for the women in this case was to expose Walmart for making many of its decisions based on gender. The evidence of the case revealed that although there was a policy forbidding discrimination, there was inherent sexism present in Walmart’s across the country. The sexism was far too prevalent for it to be a random occurrence, with only a few employers behaving inappropriately. By revealing this discrepancy, the Dukes case illuminated the gender discrimination that exists in the country today. While no company outwardly says that women cannot advance it doesn’t mean that women aren’t discriminated against or receiving the same pay as their male counterparts.  

Regardless of this truth, Scalia remained in defense of Walmart and alluded to the fact that the company forbids all acts of sex discrimination. His incredibly dismissive remarks are a painful example of how people can easily brush off sexism. Unfortunately, is something many women have become accustomed to, particularly in the workplace. Many have learned to just accept it as commonplace, or report the indiscretion, which generally falls on deaf ears. This results in several women staying silent because they don’t believe that their complaints will be taken seriously. 

1.In what ways is the court system better suited to protect the individual, than are the elected branches of government (such as Congress and the President; or the Mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly)? Give an example to illustrate your argument. 

In many distinct aspects the court system was designed to protect the liberties of individual citizens. The positive component of the court system is that every person has multiple court systems in place that are created to protect their rights. In a dual court system, an individual has several opportunities for protection. A good example of this would be in the Miranda Vs. Arizona case. Ernesto Miranda got arrested for kidnapping and rape, two crimes that are considered violations of state law. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison time after his signed confession was displayed at his trial. However, this piece of evidence was considered a violation of his constitutional rights, ultimately causing him to win the case. It was stated that by using his confession as evidence the police were violating Miranda’s Fifth Amendment rights which include the right to avoid self-incrimination, such as the right to remain silent. They also violated his Sixth Amendment rights, which is the right to an attorney. He couldn’t achieve this win from the government. It was the court’s decision to honor and value his rights as an individual. It’s a rarity for the voice of a minority citizen to be heard in court so this speaks volumes about the role of our court system in the United States Democratic Republic. His case was able to be resolved in favor of him, which is something only the court system can provide.  

Miranda’s case was won in the federal courts but many state cases can serve the same purpose. State cases have the capacity to focus on a multitude of issues, allow entry to a specific group of people and endorse several interests. If a problem isn’t tackled in one area, it’s possible that it may be delt with in another. There are many chances for a particular issue to be resolved in many different avenues across the United States. Many people believe that state courts are imperative within a democracy because they offer many alternatives for political access. Our republic has remained so successful due to these countless options because not provided all paths work for everyone.  

2.Think about how federal judges get to become judges – unlike Presidents, Mayors, and members of Congress (and other legislatures), they are not elected, but rather appointed. Many Americans have thus called the federal courts system, and especially the Supreme Court, anti-democratic PLACES IN OUR GOVERNMENT. Do you agree that the Supreme Court, for example, is an anti-democratic part of our government? What could be the reason for this way of choosing judges in federal courts? (HINT: think about our discussion of “Federalist #10”, and which social class plays a leading role in our government system.) 

It just the name alone, the Supreme Court proves itself as an anti-democratic part of our government. The word supreme means reigning high above the rest as the ultimate authority figure. However, this country prides itself on being a democracy where the people along with their representatives have the highest form of power. The representatives and their constituents make the laws, expecting them to be both obeyed as well as enforced. However, members of the Supreme Court have the power to overturn these laws. We saw an example of this early this year with the overturning of Roe V Wade, a law regarding women’s body autonomy that was implemented almost 50 years ago. It’s almost comparable to the power of a monarchy, where the control of the government is placed upon an individual or group of unelected people.  

I believe the reason the Founding Fathers wanted the Supreme Court to be a lifetime position because it was another way to maintain the power of wealthy, property owning white men. This was their effort to empower the wealthy by preserving their influence in the government, appointing people who would rule in their favor, consolidate their power, and allowing them to be free from democratic control. The founders used the British monarchical system as an example to empower their wealthy capitalist citizens and limiting the power of the average population. They believed the masses didn’t have the capacity to judge or determine correctly. Therefore, by keeping the wealthy class in permanent positions in the government they can ensure that all decisions made are in their favor. By giving the wealth a prominent and everlasting share in the government it meant that they had an entire branch dedicated and controlled by the rich and powerful. No branch in government is as powerful as the Supreme Court when it comes to protecting the rights attached to property. 

1. Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”.  

Part of the First Amendment in the United States Constitution is that it protects religious freedom. One of the freedoms it protects is that the government is not allowed to force religious beliefs on its citizens. This is known as the establishment clause. This clause states that the country, as well as each state, is prohibited from having a universally sponsored religion. Initially the United States as well as several other countries, had a collective religion and belief system. However, many people who traveled to the United States were escaping religious persecution and were searching for a place to practice their religion in peace. Therefore, because of the religious diversity in the United States it was impossible to stick to one national religion.  

In America, most people practiced some type of Christianity with many of them being Protestant Christians. This didn’t bother the average citizen because the government vowed to keep away from their personal lives. However, there were some accounts of religious restrictions on Jewish people wanting to run for political office, and even some regarding their citizenship. In the nineteenth century, many people began to worry about a nationwide religion being established in the United States. Several Irish and Southern European immigrants moved in, and they were predominantly Catholic. Concerned that the new immigrants would be unable to adjust the United States passed laws that made sure that the government wouldn’t assist with religious schools. People who followed newer religions began to move to the United States including Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh-day Adventists whose practices conflicted with that of the Protestant church. Additionally, because the public school system was beginning to become popular, they incorporated Protestant teachings in the school curriculum. This would clash with the children who believed in different sects of Christianity. 

The establishment clause is different for us today because it not only prevents the country or state from having one set religion, but it outlaws the government from supporting one religion over another. For example, they cannot approve of Christianity but disprove of Catholicism, or disapprove of atheism because they prefer the teachings of God.  

In the year 1971 there was a case called Lemon v. Kurtzman, where the Supreme Court created the Lemon test to interpret if a law or other government practice had endorsed one religion over another. If it did, they would eventually determine if that law were to remain or if it should be removed and declared unconstitutional. The Lemon test has three conditions that must be met in order for the law to remain operational. The first condition is that the law cannot lead government and religion intertwining. There should be a noticeably clear and specific boundary between government and religion, and it should not require a lot of effort on behalf of the government. The second condition is that each law or practice can in no way hinder or promote any religious practices. It should always remain neutral when it comes to religion or its customs. Lastly, each law cannot have any connection with a religion. It must have a secular purpose and with no religious justifications involved. For example, a school or its staff cannot require a student to pray or study the bible in school because it’s an illegal display of religion and doesn’t separate church and state.  

2. Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading. 

Flag burning is essentially symbolic speech that is preserved and protected by the First Amendment of the constitution. This is a controversial topic because many people in America see the flag as something to be respected because it symbolizes the unification of our country. For this very reason there were several laws in the past that prevented the damaging, defacing, and disrespect of the American flag. However, many people discovered that burning the flag was the perfect way to illustrate their opposition on particular U.S. policies while collectively bringing attention to their cause.  

One person who decided to bring awareness to his cause by burning the flag was a man named Gregory Lee Johnson. He was a notable member of many anti-war and pro-communist groups in the early 1980s. In the year 1884, Johnson attended a protest near the Republican National Convention which was located in Dallas Texas. At this protest Johnson was spotted setting fire to an American flag that another protester had ripped down from a flagpole. He was subsequently arrested and charged with “desecration of a venerated object” and was later convicted of that crime. Nevertheless, in 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that burning the flag was equated to freedom of speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment. They found the law that convicted Johnson for desecrating the flag to be unconstitutional. People who were upset with this ruling tried to pass a law called the Flag Protection Act, which was their attempt to overrule this case. However, in 1990 the Supreme Court had also ruled this law unconstitutional. There have been several attempts since then to render flag burning illegal in both state and federal governments. All these attempts have failed.  

3. What does it mean when someone says, “I’m taking the Fifth”? 

One of the most widely known stipulations of the Fifth Amendment is the defense against self-incrimination, or in other words “the right to remain silent.” People used the phrase “taking the Fifth” which usually means the refusal to answer questions, particularly in court, on the grounds that you may say things that will cause you to look guilty. For example, people have the right not to supply the court or law enforcement with evidence that may lay the blame on you for a crime. Furthermore, if that person refuses to testify in their own defense, the opposing side can’t use their statement as evidence of guilt or innocence. This stipulation in the Fifth Amendment became popular during the Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court case in 1966. The suspects in this case believed they were obligated to be informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent, before a police interrogation. However, the law doesn’t necessarily state that law enforcement must inform suspects of their Miranda Rights before questioned in situations where they may come and go as they please. 

1. P. Williams writes in her essay, that the war on terror is a new type of a war. What’s new about it, how is it different from traditional wars? 

In Patricia William’s essay she expresses “that a war against terrorism is a war of the mind” (Williams 1). This means that because a war against terrorism is a civilian enemy and not a military organization a terrorist can be found anywhere and can be anyone. A terrorist is a civilian who is not associated with any political group. Terrorist use violence to accomplish any task they strive to complete. This presents a problem in the government, particularly after the 9/11 attacks. The government’s goal is to find out who these people are and how to find them. However, terrorists can be anyone that makes us fearful and therefore the enemy is not clear. If a military war against another government takes place you make be able to overpower them and conquer their land which will make the losing side surrender. A battle fought in this manner is easy to point out the winning and losing side. A war on terror is about being suspicious of everyone around you. Consequently, it can end up being a battle we are fighting forever because you are not able to indicate when you have won, and that makes it extremely dangerous.  

In the war on terrorism, fear is the driving force which is why it tends to be such a successful strategy. Continuous accusations and bold declarations stir up feelings of concern making it impossible to see an end in sight. However, according to Williams we should be careful of this panic because it can begin to infringe on human rights. By living in fear, we are essentially inviting war to our doorstep, making it a never-ending cycle of dread and alarm. Therefore, people begin to live in fearful delusion and take these bold and carefully chosen statements literally. This is used as an excuse to remain in the fight against terrorism and basic human rights of those accused are ignored. Williams uses the phrase “the constitution is not a suicide pact” to explain that people’s desperate need for survival at any cost. This quote means that the constitutional restrictions on government power must be equal to the protection of the state as well as its citizens.  

2. In what ways does the “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights? Which amendment(s) does it seem to violate and why? 

Roving Wiretaps allows the government to tap several devices which removes the need for multiple warrants for a suspect’s cellphone. It states in the 4th Amendment that the government is not allowed to search your property without a warrant. To get this warrant police are required to go to court and explain that there is a person of interest who they believe is breaking the law, occasionally supplies them with further evidence and asks if they could look at the person’s devices. When the judge is convinced, they will sign the warrant, and the police can go into their home and seize the suspect’s computer, cellphone, and other incriminating technology. However, the issue with this is that they are dealing with a terrorist who is also a civilian, so they do not know who they are before they act. This person can look like any ordinary individual.  

The government argues that they must be able to listen into wiretaps of potential terrorists through several cellphone conversations. These people can have multiple burner phones with different numbers which are disposed of several times a day. Suspects do this to make it hard for police to get a warrant because by the time they get one on a particular phone number they have already purchased a new phone. The government tries to avoid this by saying that they only care about the person’s voice, not the phone numbers they use. Therefore, any phone that picks up their voice is subject to the Roving Wiretap. You can listen to several cellphones but only need one warrant not several separate ones.  

The government says that roving wiretaps are required to deal with terrorists who are technologically advanced, but a lot of people are against this. They believe that it violates their privacy rights. This makes it easy for the government to listen in to conversations of people who are not suspected of terrorism. They don’t have the right to listen to these people and therefore are violating the 4th Amendment.  

3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants? 

Sneak and Peek warrants allow police to search a home or business without immediately notifying a subject. Prior to this, in order to do a legal search in someone’s home you are required to have a warrant and must be certain that the person or any other occupant of the home is present before they search it. Police are not permitted to have searches in secret or search anyone’s premises without them at home. Someone must be there to prevent police from planting evidence or exercising any other possible abuse of power. In the sneak and peak warrant authorities go into a suspect’s home, look through their things and then leave. This warrant makes it possible for police to have secret searches in a suspect’s home. It allows the police to look through someone’s private property without them being present, even though they took the proper steps to acquire a warrant. By doing this it violates the 4th Amendment because authorities can enter a premises and look through someone’s things without their knowledge. Due to this act being predominantly used on terrorists it shows how the Bill of Rights can be disregarded in times of war. 

1. Describe the primary differences in the role of citizens in government, among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems. 

In a unitary system of government, the central government holds power opposed to the citizens. The unitary system still has both local and regional methods of government, but they are both under the authority of the stronger central government. This government gives directions to the lower forms of government, but never allows them to work independently. One example of a country that used the unitary system is the United Kingdom. The central government was the most powerful and granted and removed power from local governments whenever they pleased. However, this country is beginning to become decentralized leading to the development of smaller countries like Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. 

In a federal system of government citizens play a prominent role where they vote for representatives that the people want, and each representative has a particular function. There are two levels of government in a federal system and the first is the national government, which oversees managing issues that concern the entire country. Examples of this would be foreign terrorist threats, as well as boosting economic wealth. The second is the state government where they focus on the concerns of their state including the welfare of their people such as health care and public safety. In the United States all national affairs are conducted by the federal government. The federal government consists of both the president and Congress for which the citizens are responsible for electing. All issues regarding the state government are delt with by their respective states, that are each run by an elected governor and legislature. Although there is a difference between what the state and local government focus on, voters on each level are in control of choosing a leader.  

Citizens in a confederation held little to no power because that authority belonged to the states. The states of a confederation maintain all the control of an independent nation, such as the right form a military, print currency, or construct a treaty with other powerful nations. The United States started with a confederate state because they wanted to make sure the average citizen did not have the power to make political change. Giving them this power would also be a danger to the wealthy capitalist and landowning citizens of this new country. However, this central government was much too weak to support this growing country, so a new system needed to be formed. The states refused to give up their power and the national government did not have the wherewithal to confront complications such as war debt, handling arguments amongst other states, solving issues regarding trade, or dealing with civil unrest across the country. This is when the founding fathers began to shift to a federal system while writing the constitution which gave the citizens a bit more of a prominent position.  

2. Briefly explain how you understand the system of division of power. 

In a contemporary form of democracy, the government divides power into two distinct ways. Some countries, including the United States use a combination of both systems of government. The first way is far more popular and uses the collective power between the three branches of government, the legislative that makes laws and consists of Congress, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, the Executive that carries out the laws and includes the president, vice president, and Cabinet, and the Judicial branch that assesses the laws and is comprised of the Supreme Court as well as other courts. The second less common governmental power is federalism which distributes the power between the national and subnational levels of government. In the United States while referring to the national government you used the term “federal” and describe the subnational level as the “state government.” 

3. How does the federal government shape the actions of state and local governments? Write your answer based on doing a bit of research on how the federal government has influenced the actions of NY state and local governments, during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

 The federal government can influence each state through the process of distributing grants, incentives, and sending periodic aid. State and local governments are generally pleased to receive federal support, especially during a sever crisis. For example, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic the federal government issued three stimulus checks for people who were eligible to provide economic relief for the people in each state. They were all approved by the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the president of the United States. The federal government additionally sent four massive medical stations with 1,000 beds to assist with the bed shortage in hospitals in New York City when the pandemic was at large. The federal government was also responsible for sending the USNS Comfort, a large hospital ship, to New York City to help relieve the crowding of local hospitals. Another thing the federal government implemented during the pandemic is that they dispatched the United States Army to convert the New York City’s Javits Center into a hospital which held almost 3,000 beds. Later a strong travel advisory was asked to be enforced by the governor of New York to prevent the spread of the virus through our airports and any other form of public transportation. Nobody was allowed to enter or leave the state for several months, and when the travel advisory was lifted those who traveled had to quarantine for a total of 14 days (about 2 weeks). Finally, in beginning of 2021, the federal government oversaw sending out COVID-19 vaccines across New York State. This was a grueling process as many New Yorkers scrambled to book appointments before the supply ran out. Some who booked appointments had to reschedule while they were waiting for their vaccine. It is speculated that former president Trump had a grudge on former Governor Cuomo, and because of that withheld the vaccines from New Yorkers.  

New York has received almost $90 billion in federal unemployment benefits for workers who struggled as a result of the pandemic, as well as $165 billion in the CARES Act funding implemented by former president Trump. The American Rescue Plan has also sent an extra $84 billion to the state of New York. This money has helped those who are jobless and has aided those whose businesses have struggled due to the economic hardships caused by statewide business shutdowns. This federal aid also helped decrease poverty by nearly 1/4^th in the beginning of 2021. 

1. What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of? 

In James Maddison’s Federalist Paper #10, it states that “AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction” (Maddison). Madison describes the term faction to signify a group of people in disagreement. These arguments were presumably not for the rights or wellbeing of the community but for those who held similar views. Each faction symbolizes different ideas that generally result in debate. This term is similar to what we would call a political party, therefore this is comparable to the lesson we had on ideology. Resembling factions, an ideology is a collection of beliefs and opinions of an individual or group of people that influences the world they live in. Ideology is also used to define the common interests and goals of a particular political party, as well as philosophies followed by a particular cultural group or religious background.  

2. According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), 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)? This is a key question, because it shows how the authors of the Constitution thought about the difference between different classes of Americans! HINT: focus on the passage that begins: “The diversity in the faculties (WHAT DOES FACULTIES mean or refer to?) of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not les….” 

According to Federalist #10, the source of wealth through property ownership was due to “superior intelligence.” Naturally, intelligent people were able to gain their wealth through owning land, having a lucrative business, or anything that creates wealth due to the “faculties of men.” The faculties of men according to Madison is our capability to be intelligent human beings due to genetics or being born within a presumed “superior race.” In short there is a classist and discriminatory view on intelligence. The writers of Federalist #10 believed that those lucky to be born into a particular class of people were intelligent enough to figure out how to obtain wealth from the land they were provided with. Essentially there is a key difference between the intellectual ability of white people and black people, as well as poor white people and wealthy white people. People are poor because they were born that way and are intellectually inferior due to their genetics, or race. It is not within their nature to use their faculties to become rich. This gives the impression that the Founding Fathers are justifying slavery. This is because they found a way to use their property (slaves) to make money and thus thought of themselves as a more intelligent, talented, and superior human than the people they captured and turned into slaves.  

3. Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty? 

I do not agree with the explanation given by James Madison about wealth and poverty. A person’s level of intelligence has nothing to do with their genetics, race, or social class. There is no “superior race” who is more likely to obtain wealth. If intelligence is defined as the capability to apply knowledge, skill, and talent, then someone with a superior intellect can help them accumulate wealth. However, there are many people who are in the working class, who are educated and worked hard, only to find that their pay is average or even below average. Additionally, being smart does not protect someone from experiencing financial difficulties.  

Nevertheless, these racial disparities presented in Madison’s Federalist #10 still exist today because we live in a fundamentally racist society. Poor black and Latino people who possess intelligence are less likely to find success than white people who are poor and intelligent. People of color consistently experience discrimination in the housing market. Although several prejudiced and discriminatory laws were abolished by the end of the civil rights movement, they were soon replaced with more subtle methods. One example is that real estate agents deny black people the opportunity to purchase houses in affluent areas. Living in these locations would offer their children better education and more opportunities to expand their knowledge. Often real estate agents decline to show properties to black customers who happen to be more qualified than their white counterparts. They possess higher incomes and have more impressive credit scores, or more money in savings. Additionally, when black people are placed in subpar neighborhoods it gives them insufficient banking options which can lead to financial illiteracy. Most people start businesses by using home equity, and therefore, black businesses have less of a chance to take off due to their lack of homeownership and general wealth. In summary, racial biases are depriving black people of the opportunities to grow their wealth, limiting them from achieving their full potentials. James Maddison’s general idea of wealth and poverty still exists in the fibers of American society where black people are considered a minority faction.  

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? Explain. 

In Federalist #10, James Maddison affirms that “the protection of these faculties is the first object of government” (Maddison, Federalist #10). What I believe he means by this statement is that the first initial function of the government is to protect the wealth of the wealthy people in the United States, along with separating the intelligent from the less intelligent people. In essence, the first objective of the government is recognizing the fundamental differences between the social classes because those help indicate who is intelligent and who is not. This is another racist mission in Federalist #10 because it is about who is more or less skilled, talented, capable, and intelligent within society. This predominantly is the reason behind colonization and slavery because it was believed that people are naturally and intellectually unequal by birth. For example, when Maddison says “from the protection of the different and equal faculties” he means that this unequal society is acceptable because it is the natural way of things and is supposed to be protected.  

This is not surprising to me because even today society protects the wealthy, especially when it comes to the supreme court. Today, people with access to justice are the people who can pay their way to it. Those who are poor are treated worse than people who have great wealth, and people who do not have the finances remain in jail for months before their trial because they are not able to afford bail. A wealthy person can pay for their freedom, can even maintain their career, and prepare at home for their trial. Those who cannot afford to pay off their debt from court will likely have their licenses revoked, which causes a pattern of unemployment, homelessness, and other financial difficulties. The poor who have their licenses suspended are even more inconvenienced by not being able to take care of their children, look after their health by going to the doctor, are unable to go food shopping, or cannot commute to work. Without a driver’s license people are forced to pay for expensive forms of transpiration to take care of their basic needs. It is clear that the government, while protecting the rich, is keeping people stuck in a never-ending cycle of poverty. We have two separate justice systems, the one that safeguards the rich, and another one for those who are not so lucky.  

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? Hint: think about how this question connects with the social classes… 

I am not surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy, and rather supports a republican form of government. This is because a pure democracy is when the power is held by the people rather than through government representatives. Whereas a republican system of government is when the state is ruled by representatives of the state population. The United States can be defined as a republic simply due to the way we carry out elections. Each state is awarded a specific amount of votes due to the number of senators and representatives it has, two votes for the senators in the state, along with votes equivalent to those in its congressional districts. Not only does the electoral college chose the president, but the sitting president selects the Supreme Court Justices, and previously the senators were elected by their respective state legislatures. Therefore, this concludes that the United States is based more on a Republican government with state representatives than a pure democracy governed by the people.  

James Maddison would dislike a pure democracy because they did not want the poor man’s opinion to affect the laws that they implemented. He was a property-owning wealthy class citizen and felt that only the white, intelligent property-owning class were capable of making the proper decisions. They believed that if the poor unintelligent class had too much power, they would make decisions that were detrimental to the country. Most of the voting laws came with many restrictions that often required the voters to have a specific amount of property. Maddison and the other Founding Fathers believed that if someone were to vote on a particular matter that affected others’ wealth and property, they should also have a substantial amount of land to understand what it was like. It appears as if they were concerned for the safety and interest of the wealthy, wanted their fellow landowners to stay in control, and remain the superior race and class that dictated over everyone else. 

1. Based on the arguments presented in Readings 6.1 and 6.2, which social class wrote the Constitution, and which class was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process? In your comment, make sure you clearly specify the difference between the two classes by giving examples from the readings. 

According to readings 6.1 and 6.2 the rich capitalist class was responsible for writing the United States Constitution. This is clear because during colonization and beyond, wealthy white men were given the gift of land as provided by the King of England. Additionally, between the time of the American Revolution and the Constitutional convention, affluent landowners, merchants, and bankers had a substantial amount of control and influence over politics throughout the United States. As represented in reading 6.1, only landowning white men were able to vote in twelve out of the thirteen states.  

The social class that wasn’t allowed to vote was considered the working-class citizens, who were the group of people who needed to work in order to survive. These people were referred to as the disenfranchised. The term “disenfranchised,” as defined on Wiktionary.org, is expressed as a set of people who aren’t represented, nor awarded the opportunity to vote in an election. This group was not allowed to participate in the development process of this newly formed country, especially in the creation of the government system. People who were deemed the disenfranchised were the Native Americans, Black people, women, indentured servants, and white men who did not have any claim to land. 

 As stated in reading 6.1, the qualifications for becoming a government official were so strict that many white men who were able to vote could not run for office. In reading 6.1 Michael Parenti quoted that “there is a class of men denominated “gentlemen”… they are creditors, and therefore interested in strengthening the government and watching over the execution of the law… it is for their interest to establish the credit of the United States in Europe on a solid foundation by the exact payment of debts, and to grant Congress powers extensive enough to compel the people to contribute for this purpose ” (Parenti 6). This simply means that the wealthy class was developing the United States constitution to align with their own self-interests and should compel the average working-class citizen that it is within their best interest to allow them to have this power. The wealthy capitalists did not want to include anything within this constitution that might protect the working-class people of society. In actuality these capitalist founders were convinced that land in the hands of working-class citizens would be misused, as explained in reading 6.2. Furthermore, there is a possibility that they would become wealthier and stronger than them. Therefore, in either case they would pose a threat to the capitalists’ existence and position in the social order.  

2. Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain. 

The social class structure of today’s society is the same as early United States society. As described in reading 6.2, we have almost identical class systems ranging from the poor lower-class citizens who have no wealth, the citizens who have a small amount of wealth, and the exuberantly wealthy capitalist class who owns most of the wealth within the country. The small farmers of early American society, who consisted of the poor whites, mechanics, and the European immigrants would be similar to today’s poor working-class citizens who have no wealth. The manorial lords who owned a little bit of wealth in early United States fall along the same lines as today’s working-class citizens who have some wealth. The third and final group of early America had a substantial amount of wealth, similarly to today’s wealthy capitalist class, and they were the slaveholders of the South. The two main class systems of early and modern society are the wealthy capitalist owners and the working-class citizens and are therefore the same. Regardless of the many advancements forward from the abolishment of slavery, the lack of indentured servitude, and the women’s right to vote, the class systems are essentially the same.  

3. Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy? Hint: think about how to answer this question by discussing it in terms of social classes. 

The group of men that are known to have written and signed the United States Constitution were some of the wealthiest people in America. However, they were not very keen on the idea of democracy. Reading 6.1 it declares that the framers believed that democracy was “the worst of all political evils” (Parenti 8). Some even credited democracy as the source of all the nation’s problems. The wealthy leaders who wrote the Constitution never considered the new nation to be a democracy where all Americans were given equal opportunity to vote on all current issues. Instead, the Founding Fathers meant for the right to vote to be for the wealthy landowning and educated people. It is noted in the Parenti reading that Alexander Hamilton believed that people outside of the wealthy and wellborn class did not possess the qualities to make the right decisions for their country. The mass of people was very unstable and constantly changing their mind.  

Despite the equality depicted in the Constitution, the wealthy Founding Fathers did not want poor people to vote. They even excluded poor farmers, artisans, indentured servants, and slaves from their committee meetings. They did not care to hear any objections or opposing viewpoints and preferred to look after their own self-interests. For instance, many queries regarding the topic of property protection were settled and approved of with extraordinarily little argument. They spent many hours arguing about issues that pertain to merchants, slaveholders, and manufacturers, but not those of the common people. Constitution is written so that the average working American citizen has very little power. This was due to their fear of appealing to the turbulent masses. George Washington is quoted asking the Founding Fathers not to create a document “just to please people” (Parenti 8).  

To keep the poor out of the decision-making process the founding fathers implemented a list of rules to prevent the low wealth majority from unifying and becoming stronger. Some examples of these government rules are that the senators from each state were to be elected by their respective state legislatures rather than the voters, the president was to be selected by an electoral college whose members were elected by representatives in only five states, or by the state legislature or sheriffs in the other eleven states, the electoral college is to act like an obstacle for popular opinion where each state was represented by men of wealth and substance and chose a president who best fit their needs, and the Supreme Court would be a lifelong position appointed by the current president with approval by the senate. Slavery was also considered a form of property. Three-fifths of the slave population was counted when calculating state representation giving the slave states more reputation in congress. 

 Most of the laws mentioned are still in effect, most notably the primitive practice of the electoral college, with former slave states having more representation. The exception is the senator election process, which is now executed state by state and elected by their respective citizens. The only system of government elected by the people was the House of Representatives. People would vote for wealthy properties white men who would be responsible for choosing a president who had high character, yet selective judgment. The Founding Fathers constructed the American Constitution as a republic, a state where the power is held by the people and their representatives. Contrary to widespread belief, America is not a democracy appeasing the will of the people. This was done so informed wealthy delegates of the people would successfully serve the public good, while writing laws that benefit themselves and other members of the wealthy capitalist class. They were particularly afraid of creating an environment ruled by demagogues and mobs that would harm the wealthy class. 

As we learned thus far, the capitalist class consists of people who own wealth, as well as the means of production in American society. An important question in understanding how this class works is to ask: how does a capitalist remain wealthy? The answer to this question depends largely on understanding the diagram M-C-M’. So, let’s practice by explaining what happens in this diagram in our own words (but basing our ideas on Reading 5.1). Respond to the following question: Explain M-C-M’ to show how capitalists maintain and increase their wealth. (hint: your answer should weave a summary that includes what you reviewed in the self-assessment exercise question 1-7) 

According to reading 5.1, the small-scale commodity production is called C-M-C, or commodity- money- commodity. To put it simply, at this stage people are exchanging a commodity for money, which then gets exchanged for another commodity. For example, peasants used to sell vegetables and later bought cloth with the money they got for the vegetables, while weavers sold their cloth to be able to purchase vegetables. We sell these commodities in order to buy more things where money is used as a middleman. The value of the commodities remains constant in the first and last stage of C-M-C. However, this money becomes transformed in this new stage M-C-M (money-commodity-money). This is the formula for capital in which the person initially only has money and must figure out how to get the commodity they are looking for. For example, the very same weavers do not personally use the cloth they make but make it to sell or resell it. In this instance we are buying with the intention of selling where money is capital. Therefore, in the first phase you would be turning money into a commodity, but the second would be turning the commodity into money. 

The money at the beginning and end of an M-C-M transaction is substantially different because a capitalist would not buy something without the expectation of getting more money in return. Thus, the final M’ is greater than the initial M, plus small m which is the excess money, profit, or surplus value. The capitalists can only obtain the surplus value if those who make the commodities sell them for much less value than they are worth. The people who make the commodities decide to give them to capitalists, even though they are massively undervalued, because of their desperate need for customers.  

Additionally, in the formula M-C-M, or capital formula, M’ is much larger than M due to the work the factories put in to make that commodity. The machines, raw materials, and labor power that the capitalists bought for the smaller sum is turned into a product with much greater value because of the production process it takes to manufacture that product while still in the factory. As a result, the formula for this is M’= M plus m. The small m is the value created by the manufacturing process brought on by a specific commodity, and once it’s bought and put on the market can create the surplus value for the capitalist. This commodity is known as labor power. How much labor power people offer is up to the particular person. It can either be more or less extreme. The capitalist is responsible for purchasing that worker’s labor power, and the worker decides to sell their labor power to the capitalist. The capitalist then agrees to pay the worker a wage in exchange for their labor power. This wage serves as a representation of the value of the worker’s labor power.  

When the capitalists agree to purchase the labor power of the workers, they also need to purchase the materials to use their labor power successfully. Consequently, each capitalist is transforming money into capital by providing tools, equipment, machinery, raw materials, and any additional provisions, and purchasing labor power. Each worker is able to transform every commodity into the value it should be in order for the product to sell, and the capitalist to make a profit. Money isn’t capital because it is not considered a productive resource. However, money is sometimes used to purchase capital. It’s the capital good, such as the equipment provided that is used to make those goods and services. For this system to work, a worker must work longer than it takes to make their product valuable for what it called necessary labor time, or what is required to replicate their labor power. For example, maybe it takes four hours of someone’s labor power to produce everything needed for one day. If they work a 9 AM to 5 PM shift, they have spent what they are worth by 1 PM., four hours later. However, they still must work till 5 PM so their employer gets an extra four hours of labor out of their worker. This is called surplus labor. This is the extra labor a worker must do their job far beyond just earning a living for themselves. This is generally unpaid labor. Anything the worker does at that point belongs to the employer capitalist. They sell the products their workers make for a profit and keep that profit for themselves.