1. Individuals can ask for the highest court level to review their case if they are dissatisfied. However this may not be guaranteed. This is a way of checking on each other based on the rule of law. The state court system reviews most criminal and contract cases that fall under that state’s laws and constitutions. While the federal court system reviews cases that deal with the federal laws and constitution of the country and where high status and foreign disputes are resolved. Through this share of power between the federal and state governments to uphold and judge an individual, they both create and uphold their own court systems. In this way they operate independently and neutral free from majority and political pressure. An example is the supreme court’s verdict in Obergefell v. Hodges, where they gave the right to same sex marriage. The court proved this through the fourteenth amendment right that ensured the protection of the individual lawfully. Despite public disagreement pressure. 

2. I agree with the supreme court being an anti-democratic part of our government. I think that this way of choosing judges without the election and voting of the people is unusual. As we elect presidents, mayors and members of congress to govern the country. It is just as critical for an election of the judges to be done. Given that they are the ones who uphold the laws and give verdicts to federal cases. I think that it is done this way to elect judges based on what the president and senate positions in charge reflect about their own ideological position. This way the ideological legacy can carry on through the lifetime appointment of the judges. The elite class in the government can influence for this long behind the scenes.

1. The war on terror is a war of the mind. Something that can very easily be twisted that the enemy becomes anybody who makes us afraid. It makes it hard to talk about facts rather than fear by which one is overridden by. The damage in this sense comes from craven sympathies that amount to naive and treacherous self-delusion. This leaves us poised to an even more fearsome world where we subject ourselves to a totalitarian system of life for the sake of safety and trust in the government. This type of war is not so much in the frontlines as in traditional wars. It can be said as more of an inside job that occurs within the government and its citizens.  

2. The roving wiretaps seem to violate the 4th amendment which is the boundary between general individual freedoms and the rights of those suspected of crimes. The fourth amendment secures the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures and only upon probable cause that roving wiretaps can be used lawfully. Government officials are required to apply and receive a search warrant prior to a search or seizure that must be supported by oath or affirmation. Roving wiretaps are essential to flexibly investigate sophisticated technology terrorists. The problem that arises is that this can lead to privacy violations when anyone comes into contact with a suspect. There isn’t protection against unwarranted snooping from proceeding. 

3. Sneak and Peek warrants also seem to violate the 4th amendment in which without a warrant, seizures and searches are unreasonable to do. In cases where there is a reasonable expectation that evidence may be destroyed or tampered with before a warrant can be issued or if evidence in question is in the plain sight of government officials then home searches without notifying the target are deemed appropriate. However officials are still to explain why they were to delay the warrant and eventually later on inform the target about the search in this manner. The problem is that this act may apply to any crime no matter how minor it is even though it is ideal and appropriate to apply this act on terror and espionage cases preferably.

1. I understand the establishment clause as the two related freedoms of religion. The first one protects people from having a set of religious beliefs imposed on them by the federal government. Second, people are protected from having their own religious beliefs restricted or threatened by the government. The government is also forbidden from favoring one set of religious beliefs over others or favoring any religion over non-religion. This was founded based on the diversity of religious beliefs that many settlers from Europe came with during the early United States. The lemon test was designed to decide whether a law or government action might promote a particular religious practice should be allowed to stand. The criteria for a law or action to be constitutional is that it must not lead to excessive government entanglement with religion. It cannot either inhibit or advance religious practice. And there must be some non-religious justification for it. 

2. Burning the US Flag is protected by the first amendment. During the Texas v. Johnson case, the supreme court decided that burning the US Flag was a form of symbolic speech that the first amendment protects. The flag desecration law was found unconstitutional to uphold as it restricted this kind of freedom of expression of burning the flag at the same time. In response Congress has tried to overrule this court decision with various flag protection acts to re-criminalize the act but to no success.     

3. Taking the fifth means protecting yourself against self incrimination or the right to remain silent. People have the right to not to give evidence in court or to law enforcement officers that might constitute an admission of guilt or responsibility of the supposed crime one is being accused of or involved in. It is also embedded that suspects are required to be informed of their most important rights, including the right against self incrimination before being interrogated in police custody. However for law enforcement it is not necessary to inform suspects of their rights before they are questioned in situations where they are free to leave. It is a constitutional right.

1. At the federal level, citizens can vote in state and federal elections where the elected officials represent the people’s interests. Most commonly the republican and democratic parties. Being called upon to participate in the government lets it be to serve on a jury, testify in court, or petition your congress person to pass or defeat an idea for a law. In a confederation, citizens are able to maximize regional self-rule at the expense of effective national governance due to their power in voting. Authority is concentrated in the states. In a unitary system, citizens vote for subnational government representatives that are dependent on the national government where significant authority is concentrated. So citizens don’t have much of a say here.     

2. The system of division of power is the three branches of government that power is split into to prevent any branch from holding too much power. The Legislative branch is runned by the US Congress who creates and exercises the laws. The Executive branch is led by the president who enforces the laws. And the judicial branch interprets laws as per the US District courts, appellate courts, and at the highest level the Supreme Court. The three branches serve the purpose of ensuring that the two levels of government are the national government responsible for handling matters that affect the whole country. Subnational or state governments responsible for handling matters that lie within their regions. Each branch can limit and check each other’s power to stay equally balanced. There is a separation of functions between the federal and state governments in which voters get to choose the leader at each level. 

3. Federal and State governments must cooperate to form an interacting network. The federal government offers and has used grants to influence state actions to work towards selected national goals. These grants can be subjected to strict administrative criteria that guide project selection, performance, and financial oversight. They can also be less stringent federal administrative conditions and provide recipients more flexibility over how to spend grant funds. At the same time the national government can reverse and cap the escalating costs of federal grant programs. Compensation to the states and local governments can be given in which they are credited. The federal government can also enforce unfunded mandates that are federal laws and regulations that impose obligations on state and local governments without fully compensating them for the administrative costs they incur. These mandates can shape the actions of the state and local governments to fully comply as they can face the threat of civil and criminal penalties or even suspension of federal grant policies. This can be costly and with limited relief to states and local authorities. For example during covid 19, the US Government was threatening to the loss of $53 million pandemic relief funds for disadvantaged students in the NYC public schools. As a result the Mayor and US Department of education joined in a lawsuit to take this case into court. It evolved into a complicated relationship among both powers to get into agreement.

1. I am reminded of the capitalist and working class concept within the creation of the constitution. They are two different factions where the capitalist class are the minority who have the most influence and power united for their interests adverse to the rights of the ordinary citizens. And the working class is the majority united by the struggle of the equality of rights and say in the government role of American society. 

2. The source of wealth is what you inherit at birth if you’re poor or rich(Generational). This can lead to unequal distribution of wealth with different interests and parties from both factions. It is the government regulations that differ protection and help to one faction than the other from acquiring property(private wealth).

3. I don’t agree with this expansion of wealth and property as the elite wealth are allies with the government. It is one sided for them to inherit and maintain this level of private wealth. Some instances can be where the government excludes the elite wealth from being taxed and limited from buying up more private property. Unlike the working class people who don’t have that level of wealth to start or even maintain from being taxed and in debt over time.

4. The core mission of the US Government is to protect the interests and rights of having private property for both factions being the elite wealthy and the working class. It does not surprise me as this still holds true in today’s society. It persists with the working class being in burden from taxes and debts while trying to make a living in a 9-5 workday. Meanwhile the elite wealthy like the delegates of the constitution work to maintain the anarchy of the working class to a degree while not overlooking what problems may arise if they themselves get carried away with their exploitation and excess of private wealth. 

5. I am not surprised of that Federalist #10 not being in favour of democracy instead favouring a republican form of government as the ideal government of the delegates wouldn’t hold the main power to assemble and administer in person privately as they would want. With the pretext that they represent and stand on behalf of the people when in reality they are more protected to hide their true interests in wealth and power. This would be the people’s role instead in a democracy. The delegates would lose power and make way for the rise in power of the working class to replace them in a sense of what is best for the country. If the delegates could hold power by controlling the effects of both factions while representing a prospect that promises a solution for both factions then this method of a republic would be enjoyed by a large majority as it has been for a long time.

1. The capitalist class wrote the constitution and the working class did not partake in the process. Reading 6.2 states, “we first encounter four groups whose economic status had a definite legal expression: the slaves, the identified servants, the mass of men who could not qualify for voting under the property tests imposed by the state constitutions and laws and women… these groups were, therefore, not represented in the convention which drafted the constitution”. Reading 6.1 states, “(c) effectively propagate the financial and commercial interests of the affluent class and (d) defend the very wealthy from the competing claims of other classes within the society”. These were the main interests of the delegates when creating a stronger central power. Reading 6.1 states, “The working people of that day have been portrayed as parochial spendthrifts who never paid their debts and who advocated inflated paper money”. For this portration the working class was excluded and not allowed to participate given their lack of value and benefit that they could provide unlike the capitalist class. 

2. I would say yes the social class structure of the early united states society is the same as ours today. The elite wealthy still own a large chunk of the country’s wealth in investments, stocks, etc. Without having to do much of the labor that the working class puts into effort to sustain them as the working class tries to sustain enough for themselves. In reading 6.1, The capitalist class has a high mindedness attribute in which they believe that what was good for themselves was ultimately good for their country. The capitalist class still look after themselves and their close allies to benefit from the working class as much as they can. This is true in which the government may not really regulate corporate companies that compete each other out and exploit the open market with the promise that it benefits everybody. But in reality this can be unfair for consumers and those trying to gain wealth.

3. The delegates were afraid of democracy as they were worried that their selfish interests would be disturbed. In the system where the capital class owners offer money from job opportunities to the working class in exchange for the labor power that the working class can provide to do the work. They both rely on each other firmly. Whereas if the working class didn’t want to provide the labor to produce the capital money at the end of the process, the capitalists could not sustain their wealth for long. Same way the capitalist owners don’t provide work, the working class won’t have work to make income from. In the eyes of the delegates, “The people should have as little to do as may be about the government”. Back then and even now this can still be said about the working class to counter any potential knowledge that they might have had to use against the delegates. Reading 6.1 also states, “all communities divide themselves into the few and many”. There were risks of division and unstableness to arise from a democracy in place.

1. I understand the means of production as the supplies and materials. For example I need my laptop, wifi, and a place to study in order to focus and do schoolwork at my best. In my case I don’t own these means of production entirely as they are mostly privately owned. Labor to me is what I have and how I can increase the value of it. For example, if I own paper, I can draw a piece of art that may increase its worth if it’s valuable in the art industry.
2. Value is measured by how much labor it takes to produce under normal circumstances. The means of production that it takes makes the production of labor more valuable. Whether it’s by hand or by machinery.
3. Labor is measured in time, hours, and minutes. The more labor time it takes to make something under normal circumstances, the more valuable it is. A good scenario is if you can automate a process then the products become cheaper, given it takes less labor time to make them. On the contrary if a job requires a lot of special training then the products become more expensive since the time spent training is necessary labor to do the job.
4. Labor power is the ability to go out to work and do the labor. Alike to the energy we have to do labor to the best of our ability. In contrast to labor being what I produce and how long it takes of my time. It’s the only commodity that when applied increases the value of the labour.
5. Surplus value is value on top of the value it takes to the amount of labor going into you as the same as to the amount of labour coming out of you. The profit that the laborer makes ends up belonging to the boss or to the company. An example is making candy products. The owners sell the products for profit and keep that profit you generated through your hard work labor.

1. The formula M-C-M’ stands for buy in order to sell or resell for the capital wealth of capitalists. The First M of the formula stands for the certain amount of money invested to start. The C stands for the various commodities such as labor, equipment and raw materials. The Final M’ stands for the accumulated money also known as capital wealth. Labor power is the capacity of the mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which can be left fallow or brought into action and which can be used more or less intensely. An ideal start for the M factor, an ideal deal for the capitalists is to maintain and often exploit the labor power that workers have to do. Both parties make a deal offer where the capitalist buys the labor power at its money value and in exchange the capitalist agrees to pay the worker a certain wage. With this same money to start, the means of production are bought to enable the labor power to be used. This is by the means of supplies, equipment and buildings. The critical part of the process is the worker labouring for longer than it takes to create an equal value to his or her subsistence requirements. The unpaid labor is the surplus value that the capitalist makes of the supplementary day’s of work. An important factor to this is not raising the worker’s wages. An alternative method is to increase productivity of labor by greater intensity of labor that is greater effort in the product.

1. The statistic of the top 1 percent owning between 40 and 50 percent of the nation’s total wealth. That includes stocks, bonds, investment funds, land, natural resources, business assets, etc. This is more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent. In comparison to the 40 percent of families that own some stocks or bonds, but they only accumulate no more than $2000. The 90 percent of families have little or no assets unlike the vast amount of debts and mortgages. It can be said that there is no regulation between the top 1 percent and the rest. It changes the perspective of the US being a “mostly broad affluent middle class society”.  

2. Some implications can be a sense of superiority between those of higher class against lower class people. Where income and wealth matters to an extent of getting something more easily. I have seen this before in some cases of the new playstation 5 pro coming out with reserve orders before the initial public release. In these cases the prices are higher given that they are limited and the stock replicas will be sold out soon. The rest of the public will buy and resell for higher prices as to make up for not being able to afford the pre order sale before. Leaving the people who can’t afford either in a financial hold to wait even longer for a fair price. Restriction of social mobility is a main one where having greater wealth gives more access to higher education quality, healthcare, and opportunities for a better quality of life. People who don’t have the wealth or may only be able to afford one aspect of these benefits with their wealth don’t get to reach their full potential. This is often passed down in their families. For example those in remote rural areas than those in urban main city districts have to travel to get a chance of partaking in greater economic and social development opportunities. Or they get left out from advancing forward.

1. Some similarities are that social class is based on common socioeconomic variables such as income, education, wealth and even occupation. These are the sources by which people often associate themselves from the 5 social class types. Some differences such as in reading 4.1 where age, race, and residence location has an impact on the social class that people associate themselves with. It’s not very common but can be important to include social class as a value of identification. 

2. On the 46st station served by the 7 train in Queens, the middle social class tends to live in my neighborhood. I am not surprised and assert that this is a dominant reality as many in the neighborhood commute to and from Manhattan everyday to work. Given the high salaries of work that they probably earn. People meet the consistent rent prices of $2,000 and upwards to live here. Except for the very few who work nearby can be considered as working class to make just enough to live in the neighborhood. 

3. I notice that social classes like upper middle and upper class live and commute within Manhattan or near the outskirts of manhattan strongholds for high paying jobs. Also reside in more safer neighborhoods. Then middle and working class residents reside in average residence locations not too far from transportation. They may or may not work at high paying jobs in the city but they make enough to make a living. The lower class often reside in far away neighborhoods or in neighborhoods considered very affordable to live cheaply. But can be on the downside due to the environment and lack of resources.