The court system is better at protecting individual rights because judges focus on the law and the Constitution, not on winning votes or staying popular. Elected officials, like the President or members of Congress, often make decisions based on what the majority wants so they can get re-elected. This can sometimes lead to ignoring the rights of individuals or minority groups. A great example of how courts protect rights is the case Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and confessed to a crime without being told he had the right to remain silent or to have a lawyer. The Supreme Court said this violated his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Because of this case, police now have to read people their “Miranda rights” when they are arrested. This shows how the courts can step in to stop unfair treatment and make sure everyone’s rights are protected, even when other parts of the government fail to do so.
Some people say the Supreme Court is anti-democratic because justices aren’t elected by the people. Instead, they are chosen by the President and approved by the Senate. This means regular citizens don’t get to vote for them, which can feel unfair in a democracy. However, there’s a good reason for this. The Founding Fathers, like James Madison in Federalist #10, worried that if every decision was based only on majority rule, the rights of individuals and minority groups could be ignored. By having judges who aren’t elected, the courts can stay independent and make decisions based on the Constitution, not on what’s popular or what will win votes. This helps protect everyone’s rights, even if the majority disagrees. That said, many judges come from wealthy or powerful backgrounds, which means they might not always understand or focus on the struggles of ordinary people. This can be a downside.
Patricia Williams describes the war on terror as different from traditional wars because it is more about fighting an idea, specifically the fear of terrorism, rather than a specific enemy or nation. This allows anyone who causes fear to be considered an enemy, making it difficult to fight and adding a layer of social panic.
Roving wiretaps from the Patriot Act seem to violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is because the law allows the government to wiretap multiple devices without needing a separate court order for each, making it easier for innocent people who might be connected to a suspect to be spied upon without proper checks.
“Sneak and Peek” warrants let authorities search a home or business without immediately notifying the person being investigated. This appears to violate the Fourth Amendment, as it undermines the right to privacy and due process by allowing searches without timely notice, preventing individuals from knowing about and challenging the search.
The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment, prohibiting the government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another. It keeps church and state separate and prevents the government from promoting religious beliefs. The Lemon Test, from the Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), is a way to check if a law breaks this rule. For a law to be allowed, it must: (1) have a non-religious purpose, (2) not help or hurt any religion, and (3) not create too much connection between the government and religion.
Burning the U.S. flag is protected by the First Amendment as symbolic speech. This was affirmed in the Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson (1989), where the Court ruled that flag desecration is a form of free expression protected by the First Amendment.
When someone says, “I’m taking the Fifth,” they are using their Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions that could make them look guilty of a crime. This means they don’t want to provide any information that could lead to their conviction. This right to remain silent is important because it protects people from being forced to speak against themselves. This right became well-known after the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966), where it was decided that police must inform suspects about their rights, including the right to stay silent.
In a federal system like the U.S., citizens can engage with both state and national governments, giving them multiple ways to influence policies. In a confederation, citizens mainly deal with their state governments since the central government has little power, making their involvement more local. In a unitary system, the central government holds most of the power, so citizens have less direct influence on national policies and mainly interact at the local level.
The division of power is how authority is split between the federal government and state governments. The federal government deals with national issues like defense, while state governments handle local matters like education. This setup is meant to balance power, ensuring that no single government can act without considering the other.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government significantly influenced New York State and local actions. For example, it provided funding through relief packages like the CARES Act, which helped New York pay for healthcare and support people out of work. The federal government also offered guidelines through the CDC on safety measures like social distancing and mask-wearing, which New York followed. Also, the federal emergency declaration allowed for quicker resource sharing and better coordination, enabling the state to respond to the pandemic more effectively.
The concept of “faction” reminds me of class conflict because it highlights the struggles between different groups in society with competing interests.
Madison explains that wealth comes from “the diversity in the faculties” of people, which means their different skills and abilities. Some people are able to acquire wealth due to their talents, while others may not have those same abilities, leading to poverty.
I agree partially. While individual skills do play a role in wealth creation, other factors like education and social systems also significantly affect a person’s ability to get rich. It’s not just about personal talent; societal barriers impact wealth distribution too.
The core mission of the US government, according to Madison, is to protect property rights and the interests of those who own property. Madison’s view emphasizes protecting the wealthy rather than serving broader social goals.
It’s not surprising that Federalist #10 favors a Republican government instead of pure democracy. Madison feared that democracy could lead to majority rule, which might threaten the rights of wealthy property owners. He believed a representative system would better protect the interests of all, especially the established classes, from potential conflicts with the poorer majority.
The Constitution was written primarily by the upper class, including wealthy landowners and merchants. This group, often called the “gentlemen,” included men like George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. In contrast, the social classes excluded from the process included poor farmers, enslaved people, indentured servants, and women. Basically those without property who couldn’t participate in politics.
The social class structure of early America was different from today’s structure. Back then, it was mostly divided between rich landowners and poor, disenfranchised individuals. Today, we have more classes, such as the middle class, and more people can vote and participate, regardless of their wealth.
The framers of the Constitution feared democracy because they believed that the majority of people (especially the poor) could threaten their wealth and property. They worried that if everyone could vote, they might end up losing their money or power, which is why they designed a government that limited the influence of the lower classes.
The means of production refers to the resources, tools, and infrastructure used to create goods and services, such as a car factory with its building, machinery, and raw materials. Labor, on the other hand, refers to the human effort, skills, and time used in production, such as the workers employed at the car factory, including welders, assembly line workers, and engineers.
Value, according to the video, is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor time required to produce a commodity. Labor gives “value” to value.
Labor and value are directly related. The relationship is that labor creates value. The amount of “socially necessary labor time” required to produce a commodity determines its value.
Labor is the actual work performed. It’s the process of transforming raw materials or existing goods into something new, using physical and mental effort. It’s the doing of the work. Labor power is the capacity or potential to do work. It’s the worker’s ability – their skills, knowledge, physical strength, and willingness – to perform labor. It’s something the worker possesses and can sell. This is something that the capitalist “purchases.” The key difference, therefore, is that one is the activity (labor) and the other is the potential for the activity (labor power).
Surplus value is the difference between the value of the product a worker produces and the wages the worker receives. it’s the profit (or a significant portion of the profit) that the capitalist makes from the worker’s labor. Surplus value is central to understanding class division because It helps us understand the unequal distribution of wealth in capitalist societies. For example, a fast food worker paid $15/hour makes and sells items that generate $30/hour in revenue. The worker generates $30 of value per hour, while only receiving $15 in wages. The $15 difference (surplus value) is profit for the restaurant owner.
The distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees is that the owning class lives off stocks, bonds, rents, mineral royalties and other property incomes. Employees live off wages, salaries, and fees. Basically, “owners refer to giant corporations while employees are the workers. McDonalds, for example, is considered an owner while the employees, such as the cashier or cook, are the workers who depend on the salary while also keeping the value of the business.
Smith believed the real value of anything comes from the work put into making it. It’s not about how much money something costs, but the effort and labor involved in its creation. The example he gives is how a tree transformed into furniture or paper gains its value not from its raw material, but from the effort invested. From the timber harvesting, the manufacturing process, and even the advertising used to sell it, the labor involved dictates its true price.
When we let social class define us, it can be a heavy chain that limits our potential. Reading 4.4 suggests that class shouldn’t be tied to our identity, and I agree. If we separate social class from who we are, we open up space to thrive, regardless of our financial situation. This way, our true worth and identity aren’t defined by something that’s often beyond our control.
In this argument, it suggests that in a capitalist system, class structures are built around a close form of dependency, where the working class and the owning class, or the capitalist class, are heavily reliant on each other for economic and social survival. This close form of dependency refers to the fact that the working class, consisting of workers and employees, heavily relies on the owning class for their livelihood, job security, and economic well-being. The first example that came to me was Amazon. Customers rely on their platform for convenient shopping, and workers (customer service, packers, drivers, etc.) heavily depend on Amazon for their jobs and income. Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos and shareholders reap profits without directly participating in production.
Social class is often viewed as a hierarchy in society. It’s determined by factors like income and education. However, the economy is changing, making it harder for people in the middle class to earn a living and bridge the gap between classes. Education is still a key factor, but the disparity between the upper and middle classes is growing.
Far Rockaway, near the A train, reflects a mix of working and lower classes, as seen in the socioeconomic divisions of the area. There’s a clear split between those on financial aid and those in a higher social class so this was not a surprise.
Based on the Reading, and my personal experience being in NYC, I do notice a pattern in social classes. Higher classes seem to reside closer to the Manhattan and then as you expand out towards the boroughs it tends to go down. There are some areas that are being gentrified but for the most part it tends to be lower going towards Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens.
The Repressive State Apparatus is a concept from Louis Althusser that describes how a government maintains control over its citizens through force. This includes institutions like the police, military, courts, and prisons. Althusser calls it “repressive” because it uses violence to silence opposition and maintain social order. The term “repressive” shows how the state depends on force to manage people, especially during times of crisis or strong disagreement. Basically, it is how the government uses power to maintain order and authority.
Ideological State Apparatus prevents change to the status quo, including school, politics and mass media. For example, in politics, we’re given options that make us feel like we’re part of the decision-making process that effects the society we live. It keeps things the way they are by making us think we have a choice. Similarly, the media shows us many products to buy, but they’re often very similar. This makes us feel like we’re in control, but really, we’re just choosing from a limited set of options that don’t really challenge the system.
The Repressive State Apparatus uses force and authority to control people (fear, law enforcement), while the Ideological State Apparatus uses ideas and persuasion (schools, media, politics). One relies on coercion, and the other relies on influence.
Imagine by John Lennon is an ideological state apparatus because it’s shaping us to conform to the dominant ideology of world peace. For example, he invites us to imagine a world without war suggesting that peace is achievable if people share a collective dream for it. It promotes human unity and encourages people to vision a world where everyone lives as equals. The overall “Imagine” message embodies a hopeful perspective because it invites people to dream of a better world and consider their role in making it a reality.
