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?

I’ve learned many things about the history of colonization and how many South American countries still suffer from its affects today. My country (Brazil) has a system of government that does not care for the poor and the majority of the poor are people of color. The systems in place are not different from before slavery was abolished. It’s systematic for those born in a lower class to have little to no (if any) chance of bettering themselves.

It reminds me of this popular notice of the early days (after slavery was abolished) that indicated how one could cleanse their bloodline. If people of color married and reproduced with white people and their children only married and reproduced with white people, they could save their bloodline and make generations of white people.

This also reminds me a lot about Booker T. Washington who claimed black people should not reach out for education but instead jobs. Only through money can people of color gain respect. A majority of the rich are white, this is because the same grants, loans, etc are not accessible to people of color.

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? 

I absolutely agree. The criminal justice system is very flippant and in favor of white people. Unarmed young black people were being murdered in cold blood as if they were dangerous criminals.

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

There are many institutions in place, many structures in the government that prevent liberation. It is not because the system is broken but instead because the system was made that way. People of color and people themselves can not fully be free because there is a lacking in education, government, and criminal justice system.

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

Walmart vs Dukes was a case broken down to its logistics. It was concluded that 1.5 million women could not partake in a class-action lawsuit. The decision was finalized by “commonality”. All the women in the case served different positions at work. It also showed that there was no “real” pattern. Though the women in the case did not receive the same pay as their male co-workers, other women who were also employed did not have this issue. There was no commonality between them therefore, the case was not granted a win.

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 focus will always be to look if the individual’s constitutional rights were violated. It is the demand that is set by the constitution to protect citizen’s of their rights. This is to examine and control the abuse of power by the government. The constitution was written to make sure that government no matter the power they hold do not violate rights. This was due to the abusive government present in England. The Miranda example is a perfect example of how the court system functions. Upon looking at the facts, his rights were violated. Needn’t matter whether he was guilty or not, what is prioritized is his individual right.

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.)

I think it has more to do with the zeitgeist which is fairly represented by the president. Since the president has the power to appoint a judge it must be because they represent the people. As of right now Roe vs Wade has been overturned. A horrible fate that women from most 50 states have suffered from. The judges in power were appointed by Donald Trump a republican president who chose judges with a republican views. This is a demonstration of Anti-Democracy present on the government. For the country is not entirely one or the other. However, when a handful of judges only support one opinion it is more likely for a country’s conditions to be shaped in the way of the judges. The power they hold is much greater for they set the rules of the land.

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

The fear that Americans are not safe creates this narrative that the government can violate human rights for the sake of safety. There is nothing being reported to citizens as to what is happening in battlefields and why the government is taking actions against certain countries. For example the Bush Administration created new laws, orders and policies that gives the American government too much power. Examples of this are, ” the disregard for international treaties and conventions; strict controls on media reports about the war; secret surveillance and searches of citizens* computers; widespread ethnic profiling; indefinite detention of non-citizens; offers of expedited American citizenship to those who provide evidence about terrorists; and military tribunals with the power to try enemies in secret, without application of the usual laws of evidence, without right of appeal, yet with the ability to impose the death penalty.”. These are blatant violations of laws set to protect citizens and people.

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 first amendment protects the activities of citizens. The “Roving Wiretaps” suggest that even if someone is not a suspect can too become a suspect and have thing about their intimate lives be known by other people. This reminds me of Snowden’s protest again the government’s overwatch on citizen’s devices and violation of their privacy.

3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

If a “Sneak and Peek” warrant occurred during the time weed was not legal, somebody who has not connection to the crime that is supposed to be investigated gets caught with weed can now be turned into a suspect simply because they were in possession of such. I don’t exactly think that its overkill but if someone was caught with a gun in the house that’s not registered to protect themselves things like that should be considered minor. This is two sides of the same coin so, if someone is caught for a minor crime it does help make things a little safer but it does not directly lead back to the purpose of the “Sneak and Peek” warrant. The warrant is to find terrorists and espionage. It can be beneficial if someone is genuinely breaking the law but it doesn’t fall under the same category for the purpose of the warrant.

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

In Thomas Jefferson’s words, the establishment clause is “a wall of separation between church and state.” Though the United States has not officially established a religion, most importantly because they did not want to have the same complications as the countries in Europe. The Lemon Test was a result of ensuring that there was not “too much government entanglement with religion”. The court established criteria to follow when something of the matter occurred/how to go about a law that would lead to such “entanglement”. The Lemon Test is as followed:

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.

(https://openstax.org/books/american-government-2e/pages/4-2-securing-basic-freedoms)

This criterion ensures that a law or action is constitutional and can remain in effect.

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

The burning of the US flag is protected by the First Amendment and will continue to be. Though the United States Flag has symbolic meaning to many American citizens, it is not a destruction of government property or any particular property. It doesn’t violate any law that consists of a particular type of violation. If Johnson attacked the white house as a means to demonstrate his message that’d be something completely different. Something like burning a flag does not cause harm or put people in harm. Feelings might be offended but all in all his act was symbolic and thus protected by the first amendment.

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

Taking the fifth gives you the opportunity to remain silent until you’ve had a legal consultant that can advise you of and secure your rights. This is all a good way to avoid self-incrimination. As the text stated

“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. Moreover, in a criminal trial, if someone does not testify in his or her own defense, the prosecution cannot use that failure to testify as evidence of guilt or imply that an innocent person would testify.”

https://openstax.org/books/american-government-2e/pages/4-3-the-rights-of-suspects

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

• 1. In the Federal system of government, citizens vote for their representatives.

• 2. In the Confederation system, citizens are dependent on local governments to maintain order.

• 3. In Unitary systems, citizens depend on the central government to make decisions.  

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

The purpose of Division of Power is to establish security not just for the country but for the country’s citizens. There are three branches of government that support the division of power. The first is the Legislative Branch which Congress is responsible for making federal laws. Congress has two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The second branch is the Executive Branch which is ruled by the appointed president and vice president. They work with members of the Cabinet to ensure defense, the security of the treasury, and manage homeland security. The third, final, and most important is the Judicial Branch. The Judicial Branch is run by the Supreme Court and the Federal courts. They use cases to interpret and apply the laws of the US. The Supreme Court holds Judicial Review, they have the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

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.

As soon as COVID-19 hit US citizens turned their eyes to the NAID, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. It was advised to all citizens during and after quarantine that a mask mandate would be in affect. Those that refused to follow would adhere to consequences. Though those consequences were never specific it was understood by citizens that security could ask you to leave or you would not be allowed to enter places like a restaurant, movie, arcade without wearing a mask. NY state was one of the states that followed this mandate and took it very seriously. Given that NY state had one of the highest counts of COVID cases it was not shocking that something as simple as wearing a mask could help alleviate those who wanted to leave their house. The US also made COVID vaccines mandated , NY state’s response was the same. You could not get a job, return to work, be allowed in public places of shared gathering without providing proof of vaccination.

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

The writer of section #10 of the Federalist Papers defines Faction as “a number of citizens..amounting to a majority or minority of the whole …united and actuated by some common impulse of passion or of interest” this definition sounds very similar to that of a political party and social class. Political parties are united by a common interest or passion or in their case a political view. Social classes aren’t an exact union they are connected through their position in society and experience mostly the same hardships or leisure if referring to the owning class.

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 less….”

Part 1: According to James Madison in Federalist #10 What is the source of wealth?

At the time the primary source of wealth for the owning class was property wealth. Owning private property allowed business owners to profit heavily.-Especially since the United States was just starting to become a country.

This bought business owners a unique advantage to be the ones communities relied on for they were the first businesses to be established. This of course allowed the rich to become extremely rich and the poor to be solely dependent on their ability to create an opportunity for work and products.

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

Yes. Owning something that can be handy or provides a necessity puts you in a higher position than others. People become reliant on your service or business. This is beneficial to those who are gaining profit, but it can restrict those who are workers and those who are reliant on the product (or service). Given that this individual is in such a position of power, it can be played with and those who are reliant are toyed with. If the individual wants to gain more money he can lower their worker’s wages and raise the price of a service or product. This is the unfairness present in the system that divides the uneven distribution of wealth and why extreme poverty is present in societies where it shouldn’t be.

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.

The federalist papers reads in a way that it wouldn’t be the same political system present in England. It showed loyalty toward its citizens “Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty”. It showed an interest in the protection of citizens and highlight the injustice they experience by those abusing power. I was not surprised by this writing but it was interesting to read someone in a position of power to say something that pulls attention to those who are acting corrupt in their standing. Needless to say, it does sound drastically distant from the core mission of today’s society. Though the government has been changing and things are trying hard to progress. The misdistribution of wealth has been one of the most impacting forces in America’s society.

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.

Both readings demonstrate the exclusion of minorities and the despotism of the white upper class . During the creation of the constitution the exclusion of minorities such as “Native Americans, persons of African descent, women, indentured servants and White males lacking sufficient property“(6.1) was found irrelevant. There were four social classes in 1787 “the slaves, the indentured servants, the mass of men who could not qualify for voting under the property tests imposed by the state constitutions and laws, and women.”. Those that were able to vote and have a political opinion were those who owned land and money.

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

The social structure of early United States society is similar to that of today. Given the elimination of slavery and changes in women’s oppression, not much did change. The rich still control the United States and the lower classes rely on the rich for products and jobs. The system set up in 1787 was capitalism without the interference of government regulation to keep a somewhat fair economic field between the rich and poor. There is more opportunities now to increase the amount of money you earn as education was made free and available for all. -One of the major differences between then and now. Other than the reforms for minorities to have a voice in politics and regulation upon companies, the rich still hold the majority of power as it did back in 1787.

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 purpose of the Constitution was not solely to provide order and form a united country. The Constitution guaranteed an “empowered national government, best safeguard(ed) for propertied interests.” Creating a democracy would call for the initiation of those in the lower classes to believe they could either rebel or participate in politics. -This is the opposite of what those in power wanted. The rich wanted to remain in governance and gain more capital. Democracy would call for a re-vote on most decisions that kept them at such a high and secure power level in comparison to others that also resided in the states. 

1. Which statistic on wealth inequality made the biggest impression? Explain why?

There were many statistics that surprised me. There were two in particular that really stood out to me. I was stunned to read “In the last twenty years, the 500 largest U.S industrial corporations more than doubled their assets while eliminating over 5 million jobs” this revealed the drastic increase of income for the upper class. Though their capital grew it did not provide an opportunity for equal wealth distribution as they eliminated opportunities. On the contrary, it equipped the upper class to stretch further away from the lower and middle class. The second was “The top 1 percent own between 40 and 50% of the nation’s total wealth…more than the the combined wealth of the bottom 90%” this wasn’t so much as shocking as it was difficult to process the extreme inconsideration to the inequality present in the upper and lower class. This creates a shift in the economy. Impacting prices for products such as food, clothing, rent, things that are a necessity to life.

2. Implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequality. Is this dynamic played out in everyday life in our society? How so? Example.

The U.S depends on capitalism for the fluctuation and increase of money. Capitalists provide jobs and products. Workers provide labor and use their money to serve as customers. The capitalist system depends on the “Owner” v “Worker” relationship. However, this implies that “Owners” can look for “Workers” in a place where labor would cost less, which causes their surplus value to increase. So this allows “Owners” to spend less on labor and market their products at a substantially higher price. In this scenario, only the capitalist continues to grow. There is no backup if companies decide to “export their industries overseas to cheaper labor markets.” Leaving workers in the lower and middle class to fend for themselves as jobs no longer become available. An example of this occurred in 1995 when companies like Victoria’s Secret, Jcpenney, and others moved their means of labor to prisons. This granted companies the freedom to pay little to nothing for a prisoner’s work. The wealth of owners gained a dramatic increase and job opportunities were eliminated. Living in a society with immense wealth inequality keeps the lower and middle class at a stagnant disadvantage because

1. They depend solely on capitalist to advance the public: “Giant corporations control the rate of technological development and availability of livelihoods.”pg 31
2. Job Opportunities and Livelihood: “A small number of giant corporations control most of the U.S economy.”pg 31

Credit:
Corporate Abuse of Prisons