1 . The court system is often more effective in safeguarding individual rights than the elected branches of government because it is structured to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law rather than capitulate to popular opinion or political pressure. Judges are typically appointed rather than elected, which makes a difference. They often serve longer terms or even for life, like those in the Supreme Court (like Sotomayor, Thomas, and Kavanaugh), which allows them to remain separate from political biases and pressure. It helps with checks & balances. Their primary duty is to interpret and apply the law impartially, which entails protecting individual rights even when doing so is unpopular.

For example, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), at the time, many states prohibited same-sex marriage and denied recognition to gay marriage. However, when the Supreme Court intervened, they highlighted the 14th Amendment. Now, regardless of opposition, same-sex marriage is legal in the country.

2. People often call the Court “anti-democratic.” They point out that unelected judges make important decisions—like those on abortion and voting rights—that affect many lives. These judges can influence outcomes long after the President who appointed them has left office because they have lifetime positions.

James Madison wrote about concerns in Federalist #10 regarding groups that might misuse democratic processes for their own interests. The Founders wanted judges to be separate from elections and public opinion so they could focus on the law and act fairly.

The courts are meant to protect the rights of minorities and uphold the Constitution, regardless of changing public opinions. Since the Founders mainly came from the educated upper class, they believed that people like them—the “best and brightest”—were best suited to make important decisions for the country.

The war on terror that Willaim’s refers to is the war on mind, emotion, and fear. What was new about all of this was that we as a country were testing the limits of our constitution rights, our human rights. The events of 9.11 started the Patriot Act and our privacy was violated all in the name of the War on terror.

The Patriot Act attacks the bill of rights, the fourth and first amendments. The fourth amendment requires warrants for places to be searched and the patriot act violates that due to the illegal wiretapping, and surveillance. The first amendment because while every one was in fear and emotional people would say things and it would be taken as suspicious intent. The dangers of course which is what lead to anthrax and possible future bombings.

Same, because it did allow law enforcement organizations to search places with a delay notification of the person they are searching.

My understanding of the Establishment Clause is that it restricts religion from being the main focal point of a state or country funded by the government. I grew up reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, but at some point, we stopped because not all the kids in my class were American. That’s what I gathered from reading the module. If it benefits a specific religion and involves the government, it violates the Establishment Clause.

Reading has been a mixed bag of results. In 1989, the Supreme Court stated it is a freedom of speech, then a year later they tried to pass the Flag Protection Act, which didn’t work out.

When someone says that, it means they are not trying to incriminate themselves for a crime they possibly did. “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.”

1. The primary distinction lies in the distribution of power within governmental structures. In a federal system, citizens can vote for representatives in both regional and national governments. Conversely, in a confederation, voters primarily exert their influence at the state government level. Finally, in a unitary government, while citizens can influence regional authorities, those regional governments ultimately adhere to the directives of the central government.
   
2. The United States is organized with a national government that consists of three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. These branches delegate their powers to state governments, whose officials are elected by us, the citizens of the country. This structure ensures that power is divided and balanced. “We the people” may not hold direct power, which is why we elect representatives to office; these officials are then held accountable by the people in Congress. This system creates three levels of governance at both the federal and state levels.
   
3. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government significantly influenced New York’s state and local governments through financial support and regulatory measures. The U.S. Department of the Treasury allocated $900 billion nationwide, with $350 billion for the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) under the American Rescue Plan. This funding helped address revenue losses and pandemic-related expenses. (home.treasury.gov) New York’s federal funding improved its per capita ranking from 49th in 2019 to 30th in the fiscal year 2021, with the state receiving $1.51 for every dollar contributed in federal taxes. While federal guidelines were provided, states maintained decision-making autonomy. (osc.ny.gov) Governor Andrew Cuomo created the Eastern States Multi-state Council to coordinate the easing of economic restrictions with neighboring states.(en.wikipedia.org) Additionally, the federal government’s regulatory decisions, such as halting funding for cybersecurity related to elections, impacted state preparations and raised concerns about election integrity. In summary, federal actions were crucial in shaping New York’s responses to the pandemic, providing necessary resources while also presenting challenges that required innovative strategies at the state and local levels. (apnews.com)

1. The Constitution was crafted by the upper class, predominantly consisting of large landowners, merchants, and bankers. Those excluded from this process included small farmers, laborers, artisans, and women. The lower class, referred to as “the working people,” was often depicted as parochial spendthrifts who failed to repay debts and advocated for inflated paper currency. As a result, they were deemed untrustworthy regarding choices and power during the Constitutional Convention.
   
2. Indeed, the situation has not changed significantly. While there has been some progression, people then evaluated others on occupation, gender, or race, and this remains somewhat true today. However, we have developed a framework that often measures power through perceived worth. Women had no voice in these matters in the past, and the majority of white Americans were similarly disenfranchised. Society’s elite roles during that period were viewed as the foundation of power contributing to the formation of in the United States.
   
3. They feared democracy because they did not trust the lower class to manage their finances responsibly. The upper class believed that the lower class might rebel against their mistreatment. Given their past involvement in the revolution against the British, they worried that the common people would demand an equal share of wealth. Furthermore, they were concerned that the lower class would struggle to pay off their debts, potentially resulting in inflation.

DB 6.2

1. The concept that comes to mind is the ideology of socialism. Even farmers in the revolutionary days sold their farming services for money to improve their products. Additionally, the lower class operated under a C-M-C model.
   
   
2. The source of wealth that Madison discusses is the unequal distribution of resources such as land, labor, & capital. People get wealth at the time when they owned land and there was lots of it., slaves. What he meant by faculties is the intelligence & education of the person, economic determinism/ social reproduction.  
   
   
3. I don’t agree with it because it has created a significant disadvantage for citizens. The current model appears to follow the M-C-M (Money-Commodity-Money) structure as well. Today, wealthy individuals have many more investment opportunities, while in the past, developing countries had very limited options. Through various rules and tricks, citizens are dealt with a bad hand and struggle to maintain an affordable way of living. Additionally, measuring wealth by slave ownership in the past is extremely unjust.
   
   
4. The Constitution’s core mission is to promote the general welfare of its citizens. It is not surprising that those with less wealth have always struggled to support themselves.
   
   
5. I’m pleasantly surprised by how much I’m learning in this class and I appreciate the information I’m receiving. However, I’m not surprised by how systems operate within our country. I support the idea of establishing a better economic system that benefits our current class. I believe that the wealthy should not maintain that level of power. However, for any significant change to occur, the rest of the nation would have to unite to challenge the government, which is unlikely to happen.  

1. The big impression is no surprise that “The top 1 percent own between 40 and 50 percent of the nation’s total wealth (stocks, bonds, investment funds, land, natural resources, business assets, and so on), more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent.” Majority of the nation’s population is “working class” and it’s a struggle. What we ideally want as a nation is for all to strive evenly, but it is impossible when the rich get richer and more greedier.
2. In America, wealth inequality has a detrimental effect on the majority of citizens, many of whom have struggled to thrive since the 1980s. Reflecting on the period since the 2000’s reveals that significant challenges have persisted. Numerous banks were paid in 2008 and on the other end of that many people were losing their jobs. While wages have seen some increase, rental prices have surged even more dramatically. Recent events surrounding DOGE, along with proposals from Elon Musk and Trump regarding a $5,000 payment to citizens, highlight this growing disparity. As a society, we inherently seek fair compensation for our labor, yet the wealthy seem to accumulate their fortunes with ease. In places like Los Angeles and North Carolina, citizens are losing their homes in their attempt to regain stability, even as we allocate billions in taxpayer dollars to participate in wars that may not be in our best interest.

DB 5.1

1. 1. **C > M > C** (Commodity > Money > Commodity) illustrates the working class, where labor functions as the commodity. I exchange a product or my services to earn money, which I subsequently use to purchase other commodities.

• 2. **M > C > M** (Money > Commodity > Money) exemplifies the capitalist approach. Here, I begin with money, use it to acquire goods or services (the commodity), and then sell that commodity at a higher price to realize a profit.

• 3. The “M” represents MONEY, indicating the earnings for both social classes. The primary distinction lies in how they obtain it, depending on their respective methods.

• 4. How is money transformed into capital? When I use my money (M) to purchase a commodity, whether it be a service or a product, I carry out the necessary labor. Afterward, I sell the product at a higher price, generating a profit. With this profit, I can invest in various opportunities, thereby creating capital. As previously mentioned, owners and capitalists acquire their money through investments, while workers earn their income through wages.

DB 5.2

• Explain M-C-M’ to show how capitalists maintain and increase their wealth. Owners have money, which they have accumulated through investments made from the profits generated by low-cost labor. They hire workers who, in return, provide products or services. The owners then reinvest the profits they earn from these products, allowing them to accumulate even more wealth.

In “Wealth Inequality in America” and “What Determines How Americans Perceive Their Social Class?”, the authors explore the understanding and discussion surrounding social class. One striking similarity between the two pieces is how we, as Americans, perceive the social class system. In the first video, we are presented with a clear explanation of the social class system itself, our perceptions of how it functions, and the ideal version we hope it can achieve. This highlights the subjective nature of our understanding of social class dynamics.

In the second video, the 2nd paragraph expands upon the distinction between objective and subjective perspectives on social class. Objectively, factors such as income, wealth, education, and occupation significantly contribute to the classification of individuals within the social hierarchy. However, the subjective dimension arises from how individuals perceive and position themselves within this system, highlighting the interplay between personal identity and social categorization.

I observed a notable difference between the two videos. The first video shares information from the latest consensus, indicating that the top 20%, top 10%, and 1% of Americans control most of the nation’s wealth, while the middle class and those below are in a challenging situation.

In contrast, the seco^nd video explores the influence of education on an individual’s standing within the social class hierarchy. It suggests that individuals with a higher level of education are better equipped to assess their position in society.

1. The distinction between an owner and an employee is that one owns wealth while the other works for it. The top percent live off investments, while the other lives paycheck to paycheck for hours worked.
2. My understanding of Adam Smith’s perspective on “labor” is that it’s not just about the item itself but rather about the effort to create it. Adam Smith emphasizes not just the tree on the land but what comes from that tree, such as furniture and paper. In your video, you discuss the relationship between the owners and managers of Starbucks and the baristas. I used to be a barista for that company. The barista is responsible for creating the latte: grinding the beans, pouring the shots, and adding the extra ingredients like whipped cream and caramel sauce. All of this effort goes into the cup of coffee (or Frappuccino) that customers enjoy. This exemplifies labor—the barista does all the work, while the owners collect the rewards from the investments made in Starbucks. It reflects what Starbucks earns from that cup of coffee and what the chain stores collectively contribute to the profits of the big boss.
3. My initial impression of the reading is that it delves into the conflicting perspectives of Liberals and Socialists, shedding light on the confusion that emerges when politics and social economics intertwine. It examines the relationship between Owners and Employees and the complexities surrounding Race and Gender in the context of Capitalism. Liberals want to involve Race and Gender in everything. Social economics is not a personal identity but it’s about the relationship between the worker and owner. Social economics is not a personal identity problem. Liberals invoke such an ideology to create more confusion.
4. In the reading, the term example was “worker vs capitalist”. The working class depends on wages to survive while the capitalist depends on the workers. Capitalists exploit the workers by in return giving them low wages. I think everything you can think of today is just that. A notable recent example of labor unrest is the Amazon workers’ strike that took place a few months ago. Jeff Bezos boasts a net worth of $245.7 billion, while the average Amazon employee earns around $1,434 per week. Considering current economic challenges, such as rising housing costs and inflation, many workers are left struggling to make ends meet, often living paycheck to paycheck.