1. As Gilmore put it, capitalism is racial because, historically, it has based its exploitation of oppressed groups on racial differences. Whiteness becomes an important construct to perpetuate and legitimate this system. By elevating “whiteness” as the social norm or standard, capitalism fashioned and then attempted to sustain racial hierarchies that benefited white people while others suffered. Therefore, dismantling these racial constructions becomes critical if we are to address systemic inequalities in the world that lie at the core of capitalism.

2. Beyond mere crime and punishment, Gilmore considers the criminal justice system as also operating to create and reproduce the image of the criminal as a permanent identity. It does this in various ways:

• Excessive policing and surveillance of communities of color.
• Disproportionate punishment and incarceration of persons of color.
• Re-entry barriers obstruct former offenders from joining society, leading to high recidivism.

The social stigma and labeling that pursue them for life hamper re-integration. These processes generate what is known as a violence cycle: persons are made “criminals,” thus closing off potential paths for those persons, hence confirming their marginality further. I agree with Gilmore’s scrutiny because it says that systems of structure are responsible for creating and propagating criminal identities, rather than looking into the sources of criminality. 

3. Gilmore, in the closing argument, situates that “liberation struggle” in the mass movement to destroy systems of oppression and to build new structures based on justice and equity. One of the tasks is:

• Overturning and remaking of institutions that reproduce inequality.
• Building solidarity amongst diverse populations to fight for the collective struggle. 
• And building new institutions with an emphasis on the dignity of the human person and ensuring the dignity and well-being of human beings as opposed to profits and punishments. 

Liberation, for her, means building social and economic institutions that ensure all human dignity, shelter, health, education, and work in a truly safe and free environment. It is a community that is committed to the constant transformation of systems of domination to systems of justice and support.

In the Walmart Stores, Inc., et al. v. Dukes case (2011), the Supreme Court refused to allow the suit to advance as a class action. The matter was how Wal-Mart was accused by a number of its female employees of widespread gender discrimination in pay and promotions. The women intimated that they were joining together to bring forth this action on behalf of more than 1.5 million female workers who had reported similar problems at the company.

In other words, the Court’s ruling was premised on a principle known as “commonality,” which requires the people suing on their particular claims to demonstrate that they have sufficiently similar experiences, shared enough common legal issues to resolve their claims together. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not meet that requirement in this situation. They argued that the experiences of these women are dissimilar because pay and promotion decisions were made by different managers at different points throughout Wal-Mart stores and not by a distinct corporate-wide policy. This absence of a common practice would create the need for individualized analysis of each woman’s claim, and, therefore, the Court felt that it was not fair to group them all into a class action in that way.

They talked of some amount of evidence regarding gender bias existing in the practices of Wal-Mart, but the Court didn’t deem that bias consistent across all the plaintiffs’ experiences. To sum up, the Court has found that, while probably all the above women shared a general complaint about discrimination, the details of the individual cases were too different to treat them all together in one large collective lawsuit.

Hence, this judgment had a big effect on future class-action suits, especially against bigger companies. It meant that to assemble in collective litigation against such large issues as discrimination, the individual injury experiences must be seen to be similar enough; it made it greatly difficult. This ruling created a high evidentiary threshold before a case could be assumed to have been established as a class action-one that would make it difficult for workers or groups to bring corporations to sobriety about their systemic ramifications.

1. The federal court system, as a judgment venue, can often provide better protection for individual rights compared to elected branches because the federal courts are independent and nonpartisan and are primarily concerned with the constitutional interpretation of actions.

As mentioned in Reading 11.1 – “The Dual Court System”, the United States operates under a dual legal system where one has two courts of law- federal and state courts. This system offers many opportunities for individuals to seek refuge in courts against possible rights violations. For instance, if a state court fails to enforce adequate constitutional protections sufficiently, an individual can appeal that case up to the federal level and sometimes the Supreme Court.

In contrast, Congress, city governments such as the NYC Assembly, and other elected bodies play up to public opinion, political parties, and pressure groups. Most of the time, what comes out of this process is the majority will, but this then infringes on minority rights. Judge, as in Reading 11.2 – “The Federal Court System” appointed federal judges spend their lives in office and do not have to be elected, thus giving them the freedom to decide according to the law without political pressure.

Sample: Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
It was a Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriages in all 50 states. Courts at several states and their elected officials refused to pass any law stating equality to marriage. But an election-defying supreme court ruled that marriage rights, thus providing individual rights under the 14th Amendment, could not be denied to same-gender couples.

2. Yes, the Supreme Court may be considered antidemocratic, but in a protective and intentional sense. As explained in Reading 11.3 – “The Supreme Court” and in Exercise 11.2 – “Federal Courts and the Public”, Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges are not elected by the public but rather appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They have lifetime appointments, so they do not have to answer to the voters or the vagaries of political trends.

This seems to be an undemocratic design, but with clear intentions. It was inferred from Federalist No. 10 that the provisions of factionalism would suppress minority groups by majority rule. By excluding judges from the elections’ influence, the founders ensured that at least one branch of government would be obliged to keep its focus solely on interpreting and upholding the Constitution, even when that Constitution would have to buck popular opinion.

Moreover, the justification for lifetime appointments implies that judges be highly trained legal professionals and not politicians. The reading entitled “Federal Courts and the Public” outlines courts as having access into everyday lives through a fair trial, civil liberties, and checks against legislative and executive action.

This structure puts a limitation on direct democracy input. However, it plays an important role in maintaining balanced stability and constitutional rights protections across time.

1. The Establishment Clause in Article One of the First Amendment is the proclamation of the separation of Church and State. Besides, it forbids the government from establishing or supporting any national religion. Therefore, no church would be the official religion of the U.S.A., and no religious community would be given preferential treatment by the government.

To see if the government action in question transgresses the general rule, the Supreme Court devised what is now known as the Lemon Test, which helps one to assess whether any statute or act is excessively entangled with religious considerations. The test asks the following three questions:

Does it have a non-religious purpose? Therefore the act or statute must have some purpose, which is not the advance of a religious cause.

Does it have the effect of aiding or inhibiting religion? In other words, the government must not assist or hinder a religion.

Does it foster an excessive government entanglement with religion? That is, the government must not entangle itself in any affairs concerned with differences among religious organizations or between religious organizations and the state.

Any statute that does not set it correctly under each interrogative is presumptively unconstitutional, acting against the wall of separation between the church and the state.

2. Burning the flag is, of course, a truly First Amendment type of activity. The Supreme Court, in the case of Texas v. Johnson (1989), held that the burning of the flag was, in fact, symbolic speech in which ideas, opinions, or attitudes of its participants are being expressed, and this may or may not be offensive or controversial. Johnson attended a demonstration in which he burned the American flag and was arrested. It was in no way merely disrespectful; even more, it was a politically motivated statement.

The opinion went on with the analysis that this act of flag burning falls under the ambit of protection by the First Amendment, considering it is an avenue of expression of free speech in and of itself. The government should not have the power to prohibit conduct simply because some of its citizens might find it offensive. This case brought out the point that the First Amendment protects not just our words but also how we choose to express those words; anything from spoken words to actions to symbols.

3. When a person says, “I’m taking the Fifth,” they mean they are exercising their constitutional provision under the Fifth Amendment not to self-incriminate. The Fifth Amendment states that no one is bound to utter a word that would tend in any way to expose him or lessen his stature in a criminal accusation against him. So, if the question tends to lead to the prosecution of a crime against some person, he could choose to answer or be restrained from answering.

This right is even more important because it gives the government no power to compel you to testify against yourself while at the same time allowing you not to speak in a manner that makes you look guilty. This is one of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to protect a person during legal proceedings from being forced to confess or give evidence against himself.

1. What characteristic ways then have the forms of the War on Terror been separated from traditional wars? 

Accord to these various distinguishing features from traditional wars, sharp salient differences characterize the War on Terror from traditional wars: 

On the global application and endless nature: War is global, and it is not limited to specific theaters inside a given state with defined start and end occurrences. It has been carried out against such nonstate actors as terrorist organizations as a global phenomenon, thus acquiring a particular indefiniteness with constant engagement devoid of conclusion. 

Another aspect of asymmetry in warfare: One characteristic of the `war on terror’ is that whenever traditional wars are mentioned, people usually recall picture armies fighting wars once dressed in uniforms, arrayed against one another, pulverized across the face of the earth. In contrast, the War on Terror has been opposed by asymmetric designs, whereby terrorist groups orchestrate guerrilla assaults, insurgency, and terrorism in sporads of more conventional military forces. 

The war encapsulates military strategies alongside civil ones. Today, Intelligence gathering, law enforcement, and even diplomatic efforts are all merged within wider military campaigns. In that sense, missions outside the battlefield would also embrace activities like intelligence work, financial tracing, and coalition building. 

This wide remapping, however, redefines warfare into an increasingly multidimensionally, continuously nonlinear, decentralized complex undertaking against threatening entities. 

2. In what ways do these roving wiretaps violate the Bill of Rights? Which type of amendments do they violate, and why?

“Roving wiretaps” called for under the USA PATRIOT Act were supposed to permit police agents to pick an individual whose calls were being listened to under several devices and did not have the laborious task of demonstrating to a judge or agent why the calls were regarded to be the property of the government. Thus, chiefly, the arguments against the act revolve around an assumed infringement of the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from any unreasonable or unjustified search or seizure:

– First factor: no particularity; An ordinary wiretap order must specify the location to be searched and describe the premises in such detail as to enable any searching officer to determine whether or not there is relevant evidence. A “transforming wiretap,” in contrast, can track a suspect through a multitude of devices without obtaining a new warrant, thus contravening the particularity requirement in search warrants.

– Possible abuse of powers and options: There are no clear borders of the operation, and it may serve in surveillances that fall outside the authorized communications of others who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

In that way, these illuminate the grey situation between national security and the lost individual rights that are the Bill of Rights in a broad sense.

3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants? Such “Sneak and Peek” warrants, also introduced within the provisions under the USA PATRIOT Act, authorize law enforcement agencies to search into any property without considering it to be an immediate notice to the parties involved. This kind of advance notification can sometimes be held over for prolonged periods, such as months, under certain conditions prevailing. Critics, on the other hand, question whether these warrants may simply violate several of the constitutional protections.

Fourth Amendment Problems: This guarantees unreasonable searches and seizures protection and warrants being based on probable cause and specificity. The secrecy and delay inherent to “sneak and peek” warrants might well be made to conflict with the authors of this requirement, which is in place for either an excessive number of searches or the absence of sufficient measurement or notification promptly. Stevens, p. 61.

Impressions of the Fifth Amendment: The Fifth Amendment protects self-incrimination and ensures due process. In narrowly defined cases, any evidence obtained from such searches cannot be admitted without appropriate notice as infringing an individual’s ability to contradict the evidence or seek remedy and impacts the fairness of the proceedings.

1. Main Differences in the Role of Citizens in Government from System to System: 

a. Federal System : 

A federal system (like that of the U.S.) involves the citizens in government at multiple levels, viz., national, state, and local. They can then vote for leaders at these multiple levels: national, state, and local. By this, all these countries penetrate the life of the citizen.

Citizens get to vote for the President and members of Congress (national level) as much as they get to vote for their governors and state lawmakers besides voting for local government officials. This way, they can influence policy decisions on things impacting them locally, statewide, and nationally. 

b. Confederation System:

Thus, citizens typically deal within their state or local government since the central government does not have that much power in a confederation. The states essentially are the most significant players and make the most crucial decisions.

Citizens are more involved with local issues in a confederation since the general government has virtually no control. The states act much more independently from each other. 

c. Unitary System:

In a unitary government, the national government has most of the power concerning local governments. Citizens generally deal with their local governments, which have little power to make independent decisions.

Citizens’ participation is much more oriented toward the national government, since that government controls most aspects of their lives, with local governments expected only to carry out national policy. 

2. Federalism in Circles of Division Power : 

The power to govern in federal systems is shared between national and state governments. Here is how it works: 

National government: These take care of matters affecting the whole country, for example, shielding the country from external threats, outside affairs with other international States, and maintaining the economy of interstate commerce. 

State governments: Some issues are left to the hands of states like managing affairs in their local boundaries, e.g. schools, hospitals, and police. States come with their jurisprudence as long as it does not run counter to federal law. 

Local governments are those household services like public schools, fire departments, and road maintenance. Their authority comes from the state government. 

This division allows different levels of government to focus on certain topics but still address joint problems. However, sometimes, if there is dissension between the two levels, it may even cause confusion or conflict, but generally, there is a balance of power.

3. How the Federal Government Shapes the Actions of State and Local Governments: New York during COVID-19:

During the pandemic, it was a strong federal government that determined how state and local governments would respond to this kitchen crisis: 

Federal Funds Assistance:

The CARES Act appropriated money to state and local governments under federal law, and New York was among them receiving billions to fund pandemic interventions, including being used to pay for healthcare needs, unemployment benefits, and business relief.

Public health recommendations:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of the federal government, prescribed the best practices on how to deal with the pandemic, including wearing masks, observing social distancing, and undergoing quarantine. New York used these guidelines for its policy options such as decisions to close schools and businesses for the containment of the virus.

Federal executive orders:

Such orders affected how New Yorkers and the rest of the states would cope with the pandemic. For example, after the federal government posted guidelines on how to distribute vaccines, it gave the states freedom on how and when to roll out the vaccines to be distributed in their jurisdictions.

Inducement to State Action:

The federal government, as such, would give grants and awards to states that adopt certain standards. Thus, New York would receive additional federal cash if it expanded Medicaid for low-income people to obtain these benefits. Such benefits persuaded States to adopt the model while having a vital backup in financing.

Overall, during the pandemic, the federal government was in control of just about everything New York might have done. The state had the option to choose but got and must continue to draw influence from federal funds, guidelines, and policies. In this way, even powerless governments were harnessed in cooperation on a crisis measure.

1. From what context does faction remind you? The modern idea of “faction” mentioned in Federalist #10 relates to social class divisions and economic interests. These two concepts are discussed by both Parenti and Beard. Beard believes that the Constitution was written by the wealthy elite for their purposes, and being a member of a political faction had something to do with being of a certain economic class. Parenti takes this one step further and argues that factions aren’t simply a group of people with different opinions— they usually symbolize a struggle between the rich and the poor. The upper class, consisting of landowners, bankers, and merchants, formed factions to protect their interests, while the working class and small farmers never had political power.

2. Where does this wealth (private property) come from, and why do some people have it and others not?

In Federalist #10, Madison claims that wealth (private property) arises from natural abilities or faculties that differ among men. However, according to Beard and Parenti, that is a convenient explanation that ignores real and obvious ways of acquiring wealth: privilege, inheritance, and law and policy benefitting the rich. 

Beard argues that many framers of the Constitution were already wealthy at the time the Constitution was written, and they passed the law conceiving the protection of their economic interests. The government gave them land; it enforced their contracts favoring the creditors versus the debtors; and it provided the conditions for the rich to remain in power. Parent argues against the prevailing notion that wealth is a result simply of hard work or even talent. He argues for a view that sees capitalism creating conditions for inequality because of the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, on account of exploiting the labor of the workers. The rich remain rich not merely because of their ability, for the very maintenance of their position depends on keeping a system that keeps them in power. 

3. Do you go along with that understanding of wealth and poverty?

Beard and Parenti will scarcely agree with Madison because wealth is naturally linked to talent or intelligence. Instead, they will show how laws and policies favor one group against another. In reality, many members of the poor class work as hard as the rich do, but land, education, and financial resource access are things denied them.

Take, for example, the early U.S. government granting land and legal protection to wealthy men; poor farmers and workers had little political voice. Today, large corporations and well-to-do individuals influence government policy through lobbying and campaign donations to defeat lower-income people. It means the question of poverty is not just about individual effort; it is also about how economic and political systems are structured.

4. The core mission or first object of the U.S. government establishes what the government is. Madison, in Federalist 10, propounds that the government shall ensure the protection of private property. This is easily surprising for it seems today that one thinks of government in terms of protecting rights, enforcing justice, and enabling public services.

But then again, Beard and Parenti say, that is not all there is to property protection. That is simply another way of talking fair and just. It was keeping power in the hands of the wealthy. Many of the framers of this Constitution landowners and creditors could reasonably think that some degree of democracy would mean the poor could get at their wealth. That is why they created a government that, as far as they could, was to protect the economic elite.

Even now, according to Parenti, the government favors corporations and rich people in tax breaks corporate subsidies, or laws that weaken unions. This takes us back to the claim that the government was as good as it is now in protecting wealth, just as during the time of writing the Constitution.

5. Why does Federalist No. 10 oppose pure democracy and favor a republic?

Beard and Parenti would argue that, in his opposition to pure democracy, Madison is imagining a state in which the majority would possess political power-borrowing from the elite, even more so from the filthy rich.

One could vote for very taxing rates over the rich or a debt policy for farmers, given that it’s shaped by a simple majority. But that was just what the rich elites composing the Convention did not want. Instead, Madison supported a republic, where elected representatives make decisions. This was a method to filter power through elites who would act in their economic interests rather than in the interests of the majority.

Beard shows that many of these representatives were themselves wealthy landowners or merchants, so the system was set up to keep their interests safe. Parenti argues that this fear of democracy must still have an echo in our day. Today, even with more people entitled to vote, money still controls the apparatus of politics. Rich individuals and corporations use campaign donations, lobbying, and media influence on government policy to work in their favor. So, while the U.S. appears to be a democracy, it works in a way that protects the interests of the rich as Federalist #10 intended.

1. Who wrote the Constitution and who was left out? 

The Constitution was drafted by a group of wealthy landowners, merchants, bankers, and slave owners by their standards. However, these men were not only establishing the laws for the country but also protecting their wealth and interests. As Charles Beard points out, many of the framers had substantial property claims, government bonds, or other business interests; therefore, they wanted a strong government that would safeguard their investments.

But common people farmers, workers, women, Indigenous folks, and enslaved people were left out completely. They had no say in how the nation was to be ruled. For instance, the Shays’ Rebellion between 1786 and 87 had farmers who protested about high taxes and indebtedness. Instead of listening to them, the wealthy viewed them as a threat. The Constitution was drafted to centralize power and make it difficult to facilitate any major change such as providing relief to distressed farmers.

2. Is the class system back then the same as today? 

Some aspects changed while others remained the same. The wealthy white men of that era held the right to vote, while the common people largely had little political power. Nowadays, however, voting rights have been expanded to encompass more individuals, and we have laws to safeguard workers and combat discrimination.

However, money still dominates the game, and power rules politics, with lobbying and the influence of wealthy businessmen and corporations operating much like they did in the 1700s. This suggests that while there appear to be some improvements to the established structure, the system continues to be a paradise for millionaires. 

3. Why were the founders afraid of democracy?

The wealthy men who authored the Constitution were afraid that if the common people, especially the poor, were allowed too much power, they would vote in favor of the rich and increase the tax on the wealthy or cancel the debts of the farmers who were in distress. They saw democracy as a threat; to them, it could trigger major changes that were harmful to their wealth and power.

Therefore, they purposely erected barriers to stop this from happening. They designed these barriers to restrain direct democracy within the structure of their new government: for example, Regular people were not able to directly choose the president due to the Electoral College. Senators were not chosen by the people in the first place; they were picked by state legislatures. Supreme Court Justices were given lifetime appointments so that they wouldn’t have to fear being cast out of office by voters. 

Michael Parenti states that the Constitution was not made so that everyone would be equal in its providence was so that the rich would remain in control while pretending that there was a democracy.

1. The M-C-M diagram explains how capitalists make and grow their wealth through three steps:  

M: It all starts with money. The capitalists would put their money to work to invest in the kind of business that would allow them to buy everything they needed to produce goods for selling.

C: It is with that money that workers are employed and the materials and machines are bought to make up the products. These products are what they sell in the market.

M: And so, when the products are manufactured, they are sold for a price more than the cost of making them. The balance between the selling price and cost becomes the profit.  

2. Following this cycle, capitalists tend to reinvest their profits for the growth of their businesses. They might create or develop new products expand their areas of operation or upgrade their technology so that they could manufacture the goods more efficiently. 

This is associated, to a great extent, with how they pay their workers. Usually, wages paid to workers are less than the value of what they generate such that what is left is profit for the capitalists. This is how capitalists keep accumulating wealth over time.

To put it once more, the M-C-M process cycle comprises turning the initial money into goods that yield more money and reinvesting that profit to generate further wealth accumulation. This cycle is really important in understanding how wealth builds up in a capitalist economy.