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?

She demonstrates how capital causes inequality and how racism institutionalized it. Capitalism was founded on European enslavement and has only recently evolved and adapted to a new society. So, if we remove “whiteness,” there will be no room for capitalism, and racism will have nothing to thrive on. I agree with her thoughts because, in a previous lesson, I stated that capitalism is modern-day slavery. The ones who always benefit financially are usually white males, while everyone else faces a glass ceiling. White people must gain from racism in order for it to exist.

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?

According to Gilmore, criminals are produced through the criminal justice and prison systems. According to Gilmore, “the category of ‘criminal person’ can be perpetuated.” feel that the jail system breeds new criminals by being biased and selecting people depending on the “crimes” they commit, such as drug use, which is a minor offense in my opinion. In addition, the criminal system breeds new criminals based on racial prejudice and how people live. Criminals must pay a large sum of money, which is taxed, in order to be bailed out of jail. The tax step will then be one of the prison system creation steps to create new criminals who will have to pay to be bailed out of jail.

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

Liberation struggle is the effort required to liberate the people into believing that it is acceptable to fight back against wrongs committed by higher-ups such as government officials or those who simply believe they are above you for whatever reason. A liberation movement is an organization or political movement that leads a revolt, or a non-violent social movement, against a colonial power or a national government, and is often pursuing independence based on a nationalist identity and an anti-imperialist worldview.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Walmart in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. To rationalize this, the majority attempted to claim that because the number of people represented by the class-action suit was so large, they just can not all have commonality. They contended that the represented group in class action suits requires a common problem and a common solution. Dukes signified women who were protesting Walmart’s sexism culture, but not any marginalization written into their rules or caused by a single person. Individuals also did not all have the same sexist problem. The majority argued that because they did not all share the same problem, they could not solve their problem with a single broad solution. The Supreme Court ruled that 1.5 million females could not be authorized as a proper class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit alleging workplace bias against Wal-Mart. It warranted its own decision by citing similarities. The commonality is described as the common people.  As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendants did not share enough commonalities to constitute and establish a class.

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.

The elected branches of government, such as the Congress, the president, the mayor of New York City, and the NYC City Assembly, are less suited to safeguard the person than the court system. By contesting unconstitutional laws, the legal system upholds individual liberties and rights. For instance, the judicial department, which establishes and upholds fairness, equality, and liberty, has done the most to protect the rights of the person. Unlike elected officials, who are formally tied to the public, the U.S. Supreme Court is not. As a result, the legal system is better fitted to safeguard the rights and liberties of the individual because it does so.

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.)

Since they reject democratic decision-making, freedom of speech, equality before the law, and social justice as some of the guiding principles or purposes of a just society, I do believe that the supreme court is the most anti-democratic part of the government. They continue acting in this manner, in my opinion, because they want the government to continue operating in the same manner; they do not want anything to change for their own gain. The Supreme Court in my opinion is indeed an anti-democratic branch of our government. This is due to the fact that the judges on the Supreme Court are appointed rather than chosen by the general public, causing their interests to reflect those of the president in office and their refusal to uphold the US Constitution, which is occasionally not in the interests of the majority. There is always an opposing side, and no single group has control of the government, but it is still the wealthy who control the government and protect liberties because they hold a dominant position in our political system and choose judges based on who at the time has the same political rhetoric and has previously served as judges at the federal level.

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?

According to P. Williams, the war on terror is more of a mental conflict than it is one that targets particular people, places, or things. This is the first of its sort, and since the war against terror is a mental conflict, everyone who instills fear in us is an enemy. In previous conflicts, it was extremely clear who the adversary was.  The opponent in the struggle against terrorism is never fully understood.

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?

The fourth amendment forbids the government from conducting irrational searches or raids on private property. However, if it is certain that a person has committed a crime, the government is permitted to conduct a search. The Fourth Amendment, which states that the government cannot conduct a search without a warrant and the provision of reasonable suspicion that the subject has committed a crime, was broken by the roving wiretaps. 

3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?”

Sneak and peek warrants differ from other types of warrants in that they take a more covert approach to a case. In this situation, officers who are looking for something show up unexpectedly at a suspect’s home or in a specified location to avoid any measures the defendant may take.

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

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids the government from passing any laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” This provision bars the government from not only making any particular religion its official religion but also from taking any steps that unjustly favor one religion over another. Additionally, it forbids the government from unjustifiably favoring one religion over another, or vice versa.In connection with this, the lemon test likewise has no religious connotations, serving a modern clear reason.

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

The first amendment protects flag burning because, in the case of Texas v. Johnson, the supreme court determined that flag burning is a kind of symbolic communication.

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

This implies that you must keep quiet at all times until you can speak with a lawyer who can help you safeguard your legal rights. Even though you might be uneasy, you should say, “I’m taking the Fifth.” You should stop talking after saying this and keep your mouth shut.

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

A citizen’s job in a federal system is to elect representatives and decision-makers at the state and federal levels. In a confederation, the people maintain the most authority. They select representatives with absolute power for their states. Last but not least, the people have the least influence in a unitary government. The national government held all of its power. Due to this, residents and local governments become dependent on the federal government.

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

By letting us know that the government does not have complete control over the authority a country possesses, the article aids in our understanding of the division of power. States do in reality have power. This indicates that the constitution divides power between the federal government and the states.The system of political power allocation is known as the division of labor. Federalism is described as “an institutional system that produces two substantially autonomous levels of government” in the reading. The subnational/state government deals with issues that “lie with their regions,” which means the local government is in charge of taking care of citizen needs like public safety, education, health care, homelessness, and housing. The national government deals with issues that affect the entire country.

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?

By providing funding to run federal programs, the federal government influences the decisions made by state and municipal governments. By giving funding and helping individuals who had jobs return to them, the federal government helped NY state and its local governments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, they influence states by offering advice during particular occasions. For instance, the CDC, a federal body, advised social withdrawal and mask use during COVID 19. As a result, the state of New York and other governments issued regulations on social distance and mask requirements.

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.

The constitution was written by wealthy white persons who owned property, according to Readings 6.1 and 6.2. The working class was not included in the Constitution-making process and was not permitted to take part. People who held property had to have assets worth more than what their state’s government was requesting. The elite class was favored to hold the majority vote and power of decision-making by those who drafted the Constitution. No one was permitted to have a meaningful voice in the creation of the constitution if they were not a man, white, and affluent. This implies that any type of less fortunate member of society was prohibited from taking part in the constitution-writing process.

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 in early American society was distinct from that in contemporary culture. This is due to the fact that today, regardless of the type of society you are in, whether it be the working class or upper class, we now have a voice. This doesn’t necessarily mean that our voice is heard, but it does mean that we are now able to speak up and make change happen, whereas in the early days of the United States, if you weren’t rich and white, you couldn’t vote.

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.

Since the thoughts of the ordinary man would directly become legislation, our founding fathers feared a direct democracy. Instead, they employed a “republic” or indirect democracy so that elected officials could speak for the views of the general populace.Democracy has recently been under fire for not providing adequate political stability. Democracy tends to result in frequent changes to both domestic and foreign policies because governments are constantly chosen and deselected.

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

Faction reminds me of the House Of Representatives because a political faction is a collection of people who support the same political cause but differ from the majority of the group in some ways. Parties within a party are fragmented minor parties that can exist within a larger group or political party.

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….”

James Madison argued that possessing real estate is a sign of affluence. The founding fathers believed that those who did not own land had their own interests and viewpoints, which helps to explain why some individuals are able to own riches while others are not. They contend that those who already control wealth do not share their interests or viewpoints. As a result, the wealthy do not think that those from lower social classes are capable of making choices that are in their own best interests.

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

In today’s world, those who own significant property, like a corporation or a firm, can ensure their wealth remains, so I agree with Madison’s interpretation of wealth and poverty. Because they hire people of lower class to work for them for wages that do not reflect the amount of work they do, many of their enterprises continue to grow. They are unable to really locate a simple way to acquire their own home because these individuals are still working to assure their accomplishment.

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.

According to Madison in Federalist #10, “The fundamental goal of the government is the protection of these talents.”  In fact, the government’s first goal is to understand the basic disparities between the social classes since they help distinguish between people who are bright and those who are not. This doesn’t surprise me because the wealthy are still protected in society today, particularly when it comes to the highest court, why? Because they are the wealthy and only individuals who can afford to access justice today are those who have access to it. People who are impoverished are treated worse than those who are extremely wealthy, and those who lack the means to post bail spend months in jail before their case is heard. A wealthy individual may afford their release, keep their job, and get ready for court at home while a poor person wouldn’t have the same resources.

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…

Given the current political climate, it is not surprising to me that federalist #10 opposes democracy. Because he is from the upper class, the author James Madison is opposed to democracy. Consequently, a democratic system of governance would not be advantageous to his business ambitions. True democracy terrified the founding fathers so if the people banded together, it would imply that they would not be able to hold as much power. They favored a republican representative far more.

Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p. 29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why?

The surplus value notion as a whole was the statistic that had the biggest impression on me. It is astounding that people, or capitalists, essentially slave their labor until they are exhausted in order to keep practically all of the profit for themselves. According to the article, capitalists can even raise surplus value by cutting the amount of time that work takes. Due to the creation of “relative surplus value,” the owner is able to earn even more money, leaving the workers with the small change and the struggle to make ends meet while the owners invest the money in bonds and investments.But the most malicious part is that the capitalists know what they are doing. They are aware that a rise in labor productivity without a corresponding rise in pay leads to a strengthening of the exploitation of workers. And they are also aware that without surplus value in general, they will lose and have nothing.

What could be some of the implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities? Do you see this dynamic getting played out in everyday life in our society? How so? Example?

Living in a society with such stark wealth disparities has some consequences, including the fact that the poor will only stay and continue to remain poor. Homelessness will increase, illnesses will spread, it will be difficult for people to get food, and people will forever continue to struggle. I believe it is obvious that the income disparity has a significant impact on how social issues are addressed in America. The growing prevalence of homelessness as a result of the wealth divide is a practical illustration of this phenomenon. Instead of using their wealth to address the issue of homelessness, many wealthy people choose to pretend that the destitute and homeless don’t exist. In our society, there are many people who must make some compromises in order to pay for necessities like bills so that they may keep leading stable lives.