The court system offers superior protection for individual rights compared to elected branches of government because judges typically operate free from political pressure and popular opinion. Unlike legislators and executives who must appease voters to maintain power, judges—especially those with lifetime appointments—can make unpopular decisions typically based on constitutional principles and legal precedent. This institutional independence was powerfully demonstrated in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), when the Supreme Court established that suspects must be informed of their rights before police interrogation, despite significant opposition from law enforcement and public sentiment favoring crime control over defendants’ rights. Elected officials, facing pressure from constituents concerned about rising crime rates, would have been unlikely to implement such protections for accused criminals. The judiciary’s focus on legal principles rather than political expediency creates a crucial safeguard for minority rights against majority tyranny, allowing courts to uphold individual protections precisely when elected officials find it politically impossible to do so because of the potential electoral consequences of appearing “soft on crime.”

In my opinion The Supreme Court and federal judiciary system are indeed structurally anti-democratic by design, not by accident. Federal judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, are appointed rather than elected and serve lifetime terms specifically to insulate them from popular pressures. This arrangement deliberately removes judges from direct democratic accountability to prevent what Madison called in Federalist #10 “the tyranny of the majority” – where momentary public passions might threaten minority rights or constitutional principles.

Madison and the Framers envisioned a republic led primarily by educated property owners who could presumably make decisions based on reason rather than immediate self-interest. The judiciary’s appointment system reflects this philosophy, creating a branch that can theoretically uphold constitutional principles even when they conflict with majority opinion. The Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade illustrates this tension perfectly – despite consistent polling showing 60-65% of Americans support abortion rights, the Court’s conservative majority eliminated the constitutional protection.

The composition of the Court further complicates its democratic legitimacy. Historically dominated by white males from privileged backgrounds, the Court has only recently begun to reflect America’s diversity. This homogeneity raises questions about whether the judiciary can truly protect all Americans’ rights when its members have limited lived experience with marginalization. Additionally, the political maneuvering surrounding appointments – as seen when McConnell blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination but rushed through Amy Coney Barrett’s – undermines the notion that justices are selected based purely on qualifications rather than partisan interests.

This tension between democratic representation and constitutional protection remains at the heart of American governance, challenging us to consider whether an intentionally counter-majoritarian institution ultimately strengthens or weakens our democratic system.

1. What is new about the war on terror compared to traditional wars is that it is not a war against an easily identifiable opponent like that of another government or land but a war on Terrorism which as she describes is “a war of the mind”. Unlike traditional wars fought against clearly defined nation-states, the war on terror targets a tactic or ideology rather than a specific government or territory. Williams characterizes it as a psychological conflict that operates on ideological and perceptual levels rather than just physical battlefields. Traditional wars had clear geographical boundaries, while terrorism operates across borders, in cells, and without conventional military structures. The conflict involves non-state actors using unconventional tactics against conventional military forces. Traditional wars typically end with surrender, peace treaties, or territorial gains, while the war on terror lacks definitive endpoints.
2. In accordance with the Patriot Act Provisions the Roving wire taps seem to violate the 1^st, 4^th and 5^th amendments. Fourth Amendment: By allowing surveillance to follow a person rather than being limited to specific communication devices, roving wiretaps potentially violate protection against unreasonable searches and seizures without particularized warrants. First Amendment: These surveillance powers could chill free speech and association if people fear their communications are being monitored. Fifth Amendment: Due process concerns arise when individuals aren’t notified of surveillance. Being able to just tap several phones of one person’s voice because you think they are planning a terrorist attack becomes a targeted attack like back in 9/11 so many Muslims and middle eastern Americans were investigated and arrested meanwhile Bush let all of Osama Bin Laden’s family members leave the country due to personal oil interest.
3. Sneak and Peek violate the 4, and 5^th amendments. Allowing authorities to walk into a person’s home while they aren’t there and not producing a signed warrant clearly violates the fourth Amendment without immediate notification to the property owner, potentially violating the traditional requirement that warrants be announced. Fifth Amendment: Due process questions arise when individuals aren’t promptly informed that their property has been searched.

These provisions exemplify the tension between national security interests and constitutional protections.

Establishment Clause: A constitutional rule that prevents the government from creating, supporting, or interfering with religious practices, ensuring religious freedom and governmental neutrality. Lemon Test (Establishment Clause): A three-part test established by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to determine if a law violates the Establishment Clause: a) The law must have a secular (non-religious) purpose b) The law’s primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion c) The law must not create excessive government entanglement with religion. If a law fails any of these three prongs, it is considered unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.

Flag Burning and First Amendment (Texas v. Johnson): In 1989, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag during a protest at the Republican National Convention in Dallas. He was arrested under a Texas law prohibiting flag desecration. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that his action was protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment, striking down the Texas law and establishing that political expression cannot be criminalized simply because it is offensive.

“Taking the Fifth”: A constitutional right that allows individuals to remain silent during legal proceedings to avoid self-incrimination, protecting them from being forced to provide potentially damaging testimony against themselves.

The primary differences between the roles citizens play in government as it pertains to the federal, confederations and unitary systems are that although in all they can vote it is the choices that they are given to vote for. The choices they are given to vote for and the level of influence they have in governance vary. In federal systems, citizens engage at multiple levels of government, in confederations, they mostly engage with their regional governments, and in unitary systems, their involvement is often concentrated at the national level with limited local autonomy.

The division of power, as I understand it, is designed to ensure that no single branch of government becomes too powerful, and that each branch has the ability to check and balance the others. The system is based on the idea that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches should have separate powers and responsibilities, but also that they must work together in a way that prevents any one branch from gaining total control.

In a well-functioning system of checks and balances, each branch has the ability to limit the powers of the others. For example, while the legislative branch (Congress) makes laws, the executive branch (the President) can veto those laws. At the same time, the judicial branch (the courts) can review laws and executive actions to ensure they are constitutional. This creates a system where power is shared and monitored, ensuring that no one branch dominates the government.

The purpose of this division is to protect democratic principles, as the Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution intended. They wanted to avoid the rise of a tyrant or “king” by making sure that power was not concentrated in the hands of one person or group. Instead, the branches are meant to collaborate and act as checks on one another, ensuring a balance of power that preserves individual freedoms and upholds the rule of law.

The federal government shapes the actions of state and local governments through what some view as bullying tactics. When states’ policies don’t align with those of the executive branch, the President may pressure the legislative branch to delay or deny funding. Examples include withholding fire aid from California and threatening Columbia University’s funding in NY over handling of protests. Recently, funding has been threatened regarding transgender athletes in sports. With Governor Hochul, federal intervention halted congestion pricing plans. Many observe that conservative-leaning states receive preferential treatment from the conservative Supreme Court on issues like gerrymandering, while similar requests from blue or purple states face delays.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, this dynamic was clearly visible. Federal executive orders created frameworks that New York had to operate within, including travel restrictions, emergency declarations, and healthcare mandates that significantly affected state officials’ response options. The Supreme Court and federal courts reviewed and sometimes overturned state-level COVID policies, including New York’s restrictions on religious gatherings, demonstrating another way federal authority can override state decisions. These judicial interventions highlighted the complex relationship between federal oversight and state autonomy during public health emergencies.

1. The faction reminds me of the movie Divergent but examples in today’s society are feminist or BLM who fight for justice and equality, factions as described by Madison were seen as bad and inherently disruptive in a republic. “Groups made up of a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
2. According to Federalist # 10 the source of wealth is based in racism. Rich people essentially are and remain rich because on their supposed superior intelligent that only superior white men genetically have over the inferior intelligence of women and people of color and that’s is why those people are and remain poor. Wealth today is often passed down through generations, making it difficult for marginalized communities to break free from cycles of poverty.
3. I do not agree with the explanation by James Madison as I know intelligence is not based on one’s race or sex. We can find individuals of superior intelligence from all walks of life. The real reason wealth remains in the powers of mostly white men is because the system was rigged from the beginning to keep it that way.  Instead of partnering with the native American Indians and teaching them ways to utilize their resources they stole them and when they learned themselves they murdered them and took it. Same as black Wall Street and systematic racism. At this point its generational wealth that sustains some of the most idiotic white men in power today.
4. As written in Federalist No. 10 “the first object of government is the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property. The haves” were primarily concerned with preserving their economic interests and ensuring that their class would maintain control over the government and it remains the case today. This does not surprise me wealth and power tends to lead to increase greed and a decreased focus on empathy and social concerns.
5. I am not surprised that the authors of Federalist #10 are not in favor of a pure democracy, as they believed that direct democracy could lead to the tyranny of the majority, where the passions of the majority would trample the rights of the minority, particularly the wealthy. A pure democracy is one where power is vested directly in the people, which the framers feared could result in policies that threatened their economic interests and property. Instead, they preferred a republican form of government, where elected representatives would make decisions on behalf of the people, theoretically protecting the interests of the elite. In the context of social classes, this structure helped ensure that the wealthy—who were seen as more educated and capable—remained in control of the nation’s governance, preventing the property-less majority from enacting policies that might undermine the status quo. If the government were more democratic, there would be a risk that the wealthy might have to give up some of their wealth, which they were deeply reluctant to do. The Electoral College and gerrymandering, for example, serve to preserve this balance of power and prevent too much direct influence from the general population.

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 the minority ruling class of all white wealthy owning class white men. Landowners, merchants and banker types or the haves as they were referred to were the only ones that could afford to take the time to gather privately for months to brainstorm and come up with the constitution unfortunately the have nots, working class did not have a seat at the table. This exclusion was also based on race and gender, as people of color and women had no voice in the process.
2. Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain. I would say that the social class structure of early United States society and that of today’s are identical. The minority wealthiest remain the ruling class, as the working class brunt the responsibilities of the taxes and can’t seem to rise out of poverty. Present-day wealth inequality, such as the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small group of individuals or corporations, mirrors the unequal distribution of wealth in the 18th century. Additionally, the lack of social mobility today reflects the same challenges faced by the working class in the 18th century. The only difference is 7 thousand dollars of wealth back then is equal to 1 million dollars today.
3. Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy? The founding fathers were afraid of democracy because it threatened their wealth and control over political power. This is why they kept the wealthy class in control of the affairs of the nation so to keep in check the “leveling impulses” of the “property-less” majority working class. As written in Federalist No. 10 “the first object of government is the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property. This fear of “democratic excess” led to the creation of structures like the Electoral College and the Senate, which were designed to limit direct popular influence.

Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p. 29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why.
The fact that the wealthiest 1% of the American population holds wealth thousands of times greater than the total average of the remaining 90% was particularly striking and seems absurd. The top 1%—just a few hundred individuals—own 40 to 50% of all the wealth, while over 300 million average Americans face a massive disparity. This speaks to the failure of the trickle-down economy, which continues to be supported despite its clear inadequacy in addressing inequality.

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 extreme wealth inequality means that profits take precedence over people’s well-being. The wealthy show little interest in sharing their wealth, focusing instead on maintaining their power and pursuing even greater riches even if through illegal means and not paying a fair share of taxes. For example, as mentioned in the reading, Bill Gates was once the richest man, but now Elon Musk holds that title. Musk funded a significant portion of the Trump campaign, effectively buying influence and a seat at the table. He then pushed for the reduction of government oversight over his companies, even as they present serious conflicts of interest and potential harm to the American public. Recently, Musk canceled a contract that was promised to Verizon and instead gave it to his own company, SpaceX. This dynamic is contributing to the creation of a corrupt oligarchy, gradually eroding our democratic institutions and potentially leading to a new Great Depression.

Respond to the following question: Explain M-C-M’ to show how capitalists maintain and increase their wealth.

A capitalist remains wealthy by using the formula M-C-M’. The wealthy person already has money (M), that they possess from previous wealth or earnings which they use to purchase commodities (C) that are necessary for production, such as buildings, tools, raw materials, equipment, and labor power. Labor power is the most crucial commodity because it is what creates new value. Workers sell their labor in exchange for wages, but their work generates more value than what they are paid. After purchasing the means of production and labor, the capitalist then produces a product and sells or resells it for a value greater than the cost of production. This sale returns more money to the capitalist than they initially invested, and this increase in money is (M’)—the surplus value.

Most of the capitalist’s profit comes from surplus value, which is the unpaid labor from workers. This surplus labor is the additional time workers work after they have already earned their wages during part of their shift. Therefore, capitalists maintain and increase their wealth by exploiting the working class. As society progresses, the constant capital (such as raw materials and equipment) remains largely the same, but it is the variable capital—the wages paid to workers—that ultimately increases the capitalist’s wealth and surplus.

1. The way I understand means of production are the instruments it takes to produce something which includes ones skills, talents, and or what one owns. For example I use my building zoning code knowledge, typing skills, a computer and copy machine to prepare specific forms and applications to process my work permits. Labor can increase the value of what you have as labor is measured in the time it takes to complete producing the product under normal circumstances. Example How much time I actually apply to do the task (under normal conditions), the more time spent the more it is worth. Time is literally money.
2. Another important concept in understanding social class is value. Based on the ideas presented in Video 5.1, what is value?  What give “value” to value, what makes something valuable? Labor and value are intrinsically connected. The amount of labor time spent on producing a good or service determines its value. The more time and effort involved in production, the more valuable the product becomes. For instance, hand-made goods take more time to create than machine-made ones, so they are often priced higher because more labor is involved in making them.
3. How are labor and value related? What’s the relationship/connection between the two? Labor and value are related due to the amount of time and effort it takes to create goods or service. The more time it takes to make something the higher its value. Like when something is handmaid rather than machine made it takes more time and can cost more.
4. How do you understand the difference between labor and labor power? Hint: this is a key difference, give it your best shot based on what the video says about it, and your own ideas. We’ll clarify and develop it in our discussions, and in my video comments. Labor is the actual work or effort put into creating something, whereas labor power is the potential or capacity to perform labor. Labor power is what individuals sell to employers in exchange for wages. It is sustained by the basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter, and it is the source of the actual labor effort. In essence, labor power is the “capacity to work” that someone offers, while labor is the actual performance of that work.
5. Surplus value refers to the additional value generated by workers beyond the cost of their labor. In other words, after workers are paid their wages, the value they create in excess of their wage is retained by the employer as profit. It’s crucial for understanding capitalism because it reveals how workers are often paid less than the value they create, which leads to inequality and class conflict. For example, if an employer pays workers $10 for an hour of labor but charges customers $30 for the product, the $20 difference is surplus value—profit that goes to the employer rather than the workers.

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.

The distinction between owners and employees is that the owning class (or capital class) lives off the work produced by their employees. They don’t depend on a salary; instead, they earn profits from their assets, which include investments like real estate, stocks and bonds, rare minerals, and land. In contrast, employees (or the labor class) need to work for a living and rely on a salary.

2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on page 28? What is it saying about labor?

I interpret Adam Smith’s quote, “labor… is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price,” to align with Abraham Lincoln’s idea that “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” Essentially, it means that labor—the work done by people—has true value, whereas money is just a symbolic measure. The working class is more valuable because they do the actual work.

3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?

My view is that liberals miss an important point: class is not just a separate identity, but a relationship of interdependence. Unlike the independence that characterizes other aspects of identity (like race or gender), the classes rely on each other. Capitalists depend on workers for production, and workers depend on capitalists for wages. Liberals’ way of thinking about class as a ladder and viewing it as more quantitative than qualitative complicates their efforts to address oppression, especially when fighting for racial and gender equality. This approach makes it harder to fully tackle the underlying issues of exploitation.

4. How do you understand the argument Reading 4.4 makes when stating that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency”? What is this close form of dependency, and can you think of an example?

The close form of dependency means that both the capitalist and the worker rely on each other. Capitalists depend on workers for production to generate profits and satisfy investors. On the other hand, workers depend on capitalists for a paycheck to support their families. An example of this is a labor strike: if workers stop working, there are no products for the capitalists to sell. But without the capitalists, workers have no jobs, no salary, and no way to feed their families. This creates a mutual dependency that is central to class structures.