In the Wal-Mart stores , Inc. v. Dukes case of 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against allowing a class-action suit alleging gender discrimination by female employees on grounds of non-compliance with the rule of commonality in the law. In a class-action suit, according to Rule 23(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, members must have common questions of fact or of law central to their claims. The Court, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Scalia, determined that the plaintiffs who argued Wal-Mart’s decentralization of corporate culture resulted in gender discrimination in pay and promotion—could not establish such commonality. The Court’s basis was that because Wal-Mart entrusted local managers with broad discretion over employment issues, there was no uniform company-wide policy or practice leading to discrimination. Without a central system (e.g., discriminatory corporate policy), the alleged harms were too scattered throughout the decisions of thousands of individual managers to be a common legal question. The ruling reinterpreted commonality as demanding a certain, tangible policy or practice that applied to all class members in the same way, rather than statistical disparities from decentralized decision making.

This raised the bar for certification of mass class-action cases, particularly employment discrimination cases, by demanding plaintiffs demonstrate systematic bias arises from a coordinated corporate act, and not from managers’ subjective decisions. Justice Ginsburg, dissenting, refuted that Wal-Mart’s delegation of free-wheeling discretion to managers was a policy supporting bias with a gender differential footing nationwide. But the majority dismissed that as too broad. The decision significantly narrowed the scope of class-action lawsuits, making it harder for large groups to sue over systemic inequalities without direct proof of a centralized discriminatory policy.

1.
The judiciary is better able to protect citizen rights due to its insulation from political pressures. Judges, particularly federal judges, hold lifetime or lengthy appointments and can therefore consider in terms of legal norms, not public sentiment. Elected representatives, who need voter favor, may have a propensity for considering majority interests over minority rights. As an example, in Brown v. Board of Education 1954, the Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation, contradicting prevailing social mores of many states. Elected officials, subject to political backlash, might not have done so. Constitutional safeguards are upheld by courts as well, such as in Gideon v. Wainwright 1963, when poor defendants legal representation was established to safeguard personal rights from abuses by government. This judicial autonomy highlights the courts as a curb on excesses of the majority.

2.
Yes, the Supreme Court’s structure is anti-democratic because justices are not elected and they enjoy life tenure. But the structure is intentional, derived from Federalist #10’s prudence against factions of the majority. The framers did not desire pure democracy to become tyranny of the majority and therefore insulated judges were entrusted with safeguarding constitutional principles from passing passions of the people. Federalist #78 also justifies judicial independence on the principle that courts ought to be neutral arbiters free of political bias. The appointment system President nominates, Senate confirms is an expression of indirect accountability, between elitism and republicanism. By the appointment of educated elites, the framers intended to ensure decisions based on law rather than demagoguery. While the critics bemoan the lack of direct democracy, this type prevents short term populism that endangers long-term rights, mirroring the checks and balances required for the U.S. system.

1. Patricia Williams points out that the war on terror is distinct from conventional wars in that it targets non-state actors (such as Al-Qaeda) instead of nation-states, does not have distinct geographical boundaries, and uses indefinite, preemptive strategies such as drone attacks and bulk surveillance. In contrast to conventional wars, which end with treaties or surrenders, this war is ongoing, addressing asymmetric threats and emphasizing intelligence over traditional military combat.

2. Section 206 of the Patriot Act provides for “roving wiretaps,” under which surveillance can be permitted on several devices without specifying each in the warrant. This violates the Fourth Amendment which mandates warrants to specify the place, person, or things to be searched with specificity. The extremely broad scope potentially monitors innocent parties who incidentally communicate with targets, which negates privacy protection against unreasonable searches.

3. Under Section 213, these warrants allow authorities to search property without giving the subject timely notice, sitting on it for weeks or months. Critics argue this is an abrogation of the Fourth Amendment’s timeliness requirement of notice in the execution of searches, traditionally to allow individuals to challenge warrants. While justified as necessary to avert destruction of evidence or investigation, the practice erodes openness and accountability of government searches.

1. The Establishment Clause (First Amendment) bars government from endorsing religion. The Lemon Test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) invalidates laws unless they: (1) have a secular purpose, (2) don’t primarily advance/inhibit religion, and (3) avoid excessive church-state entanglement.
2. Yes burning the flag is protected symbolic speech per Texas v. Johnson (1989). The Court held that even offensive expression (like flag desecration) is shielded, as the government cannot suppress speech solely to preserve a symbol.
3. Invoking the Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination, it allows individuals to refuse to answer questions in legal settings if doing so might expose them to criminal charges.

1.
The term “faction” in Federalist #10 most closely pertains to tyranny of the majority. Madison defines faction as a coalition, majority or minority, animated by an interest shared by their own but detrimental to others or the community in general. This connects back to earlier arguments that unchecked majority rule could stifle minority interest, which the Constitution aimed to check with checks and balances and a republican form.

2.
Origin of Wealth: Madison attributes wealth (private property) to the “variety in the faculties of men,” wherein by “faculties” are implied natural abilities, talents, or skills. Such differences allow some to acquire property more than others.
Reason for Disparity: Inequality naturally stems from uneven distribution of these faculties. The more endowed acquire riches, and others who do not have such faculties fall behind. Madison presents this as a natural consequence of human diversity and defends protection of property rights as a fundamental governmental function.
3.
While personal effort and talent contribute to achievement, Madison’s narrative overlooks system-level explanations such as inherited wealth, access to education, discrimination, and economic systems. Modern views recognize that systemic inequality and the historical past (e.g., slavery, segregation) heavily impact the distribution of wealth. Thus, his purely meritocratic view is oversimplified and overlooks challenges beyond one’s control.
4.
Madison’s Expressive Purpose: The “first object” of government is to protect the “various faculties of men,” or to establish property rights and settle disputes arising from disparate distribution of wealth.
Comparison with Contemporary Expectations: Today, society emphasizes the mission of government to deliver social welfare, equality, and public amenities (healthcare, education, etc.). Madison’s purpose on property rights contrasts with contemporary expectations of delivering to a greater universe of societal needs and closing inequality.
5.
Reason for Disliking Pure Democracy: Madison argues pure democracies are prone to majority factions perpetrating violence against minority rights, particularly the rich minority. Direct democracy could enfranchise the poorer majority to redistribute wealth or desecrate property rights.
Relationship to Social Classes: Representative and larger electorate republican form diminishes factional domination and slows down decision-making, protecting propertied elites from unreflective majoritarian pressure. That accords with the Founders’ prioritization of stability and minority (economic) rights over direct popular rule.

1.
The Constitution was primarily written by the rich class, including landowners, merchants, creditors, and public debt holders, who wanted to protect their economic interests. Charles Beard, in An Economic Interpretation, points out that the framers were primarily men of significant property, many of whom held investments in public debt or owned slaves. For example, Beard indicates that most Constitutional Convention delegates stood to gain vested economic interests in creating a strong central government to stabilize the economy and secure debt payments. Michael Parenti, in Democracy for the Few, adds that the framers were suspicious of popular democracy because they feared that the majority (small farmers, laborers, and debtors, e.g.) would endanger property rights. These excluded groups, similar to Shays’ Rebellion members (1786–87), grumbled about debt relief and inflationary policies as perceived by the elite as threats to economic order. The Constitution’s safeguards, including the indirect election of the Senate and the Contract Clause, were designed to protect the wealthy from democratic pressures.

2.
The social class structure of early American society differed in arrangement but has analogues in relationships of power. The economy in the 18th century was agricultural with a clear split between propertied elites (landowners, slave masters, creditors) and dis-franchised groups (non-property holders, slaves, women). Today, there is a more developed, industrialized economy with a larger middle class and complex elites (e.g., corporate executives, computer moguls). But economic inequality and concentrated political power persist, as in the days of the framers. Parenti argues that modern elites continue to fashion policy for the interests of capital, just as the 18th-century gentry did. The significant differences lie in legal rights for disfranchised classes and the development of a professional-managerial class, but institutionalized disparities on the basis of economic power persist.

3.
The Constitution framers feared direct democracy because they associated it with “mob rule” that could undermine their economic domination. Parenti clarifies that the framers, who were affluent owners, sought to check majority authority to preclude redistributive policies (e.g., cancellation of debt, land reform). Beard alludes to their financial interests: many framers held government securities, which would rise in value under a consolidated government with respect to finances. In order to limit democracy, they established devices like the Electoral College, life tenure on the judiciary, and a divided legislature. These bodies diluted popular rule, ensuring that creditor and slaveholding interests (e.g., through the Three-Fifths Compromise) were preserved. In essence, the framers equated democracy with the threat of lower-class rebellion against property rights and thus established a republic that would insulate elite rule.

1. Federal System: Citizens have to do with both federal and state governments, each with distinct, constitutionally defined powers. For example, citizens pay taxes to, and vote in federal and state governments. A good example is the U.S., where states and the federal government check each other.

Confederation: Individuals deal primarily with state/regional governments since the central government is weak and dependent on state consent. States are sovereign, and therefore citizens’ political influence is localized.

Unitary System: Power is centralized (e.g., France or Japan). Citizens interact almost solely with the national government, which may delegate limited powers to regional governments. Regional governments lack constitutional autonomy and can be overruled by the central government.

2. Exclusive Federal Powers: Foreign policy, currency, national defense. Reserved State Powers: Elections, policing, education. Shared Powers: Taxation, infrastructure, environmental regulation. The 10th Amendment reserves non-delegated powers to states, but mechanisms like federal grants, preemption, and judicial review (e.g., Supreme Court invalidating state laws) maintain balance. The intent is for states to react to local needs and the federal government to national needs, with the overlap being worked out through cooperation or conflict (e.g., COVID mandates and state sovereignty).

3. Funding Conditions: CARES Act and American Rescue Plan funding pressured states to spend on testing, vaccine distribution, and economic stimulus. NY adhered to federal policy to obtain billions in aid.

Public Health Mandates: CDC mask, social distancing, and travel ban guidelines impacted NY policy. Federal emergency declarations enabled FEMA aid to NY hospitals.
Vaccine Distribution: Federal control via Operation Warp Speed forced states like NY to align distribution logistics and prioritize federal eligibility criteria.
Interstate Coordination: Federal policy standardized quarantine protocols and travel advisories, which NY followed to align with neighboring states.
Legal Authority: While NY retained autonomy (e.g., implementing state-level lockdowns), federal leverage via public messaging and resource allocation encouraged compliance with national efforts.

This interplay highlights how federal grants, mandates, and crisis leadership can steer state responses, even in a decentralized system.

1.Means of Production refers to the physical, non-human resources used to produce goods and services, such as factories, machines, tools, and raw materials. For example, in a car manufacturing plant, the factory building, assembly lines, and robots are part of the means of production.

Labor is the human effort physical and mental used to produce goods and services. For example, the workers on the assembly line who operate machines, weld parts, and inspect cars before they leave the factory are providing labor.

2.Value in a Marxist sense is tied to the amount of socially necessary labor time required to produce a good or service. Something has value not just because it exists, but because labor has been put into creating it.

What gives value to something is the amount of labor that goes into making it, as well as the social demand for that item. For example, a handwoven rug has value because of the time and effort put into weaving it, but if no one wants to buy it, its market value might be low.

3.Labor creates value because products only become valuable when human labor is used to transform raw materials into something useful. The more labor in terms of time and effort put into making an object, the more value it has. However, due to market fluctuations, not all labor results in equal value.

4. Labor is the actual work performed physically making a product, providing a service, etc.

Labor Power is a worker’s ability to work, which they sell to an employer in exchange for wages.

For example, a factory worker is hired to work eight hours a day. The employer doesn’t just pay for the exact amount of labor done but rather for the worker’s labor power the potential to produce during those hours. The difference between what the worker is paid and the value they produce is key to understanding surplus value.

5.Surplus Value is the extra value created by workers but not paid to them in wages; it is kept by the capitalist as profit.

It’s important because it explains how capitalists accumulate wealth and how workers often receive less than the full value of their labor.

Example: If a worker in a shoe factory produces $200 worth of shoes in a day but is only paid $80 in wages, the remaining $120 is surplus value, which goes to the owner of the factory.

M-C-M’ is the original capital formula, illustrating how capitalists accumulate and maintain their wealth. It begins with M (Money), which the capitalists use to purchase C (Commodities) in the form of raw materials and labor power. These commodities are used for production, and the produced commodities are sold at a higher price, thereby generating M’ (Money with surplus value), which is greater than the initial M.

Surplus value is the key to this process. It is obtained through labor. Labor power is purchased by capitalists from workers for wages. Workers produce value, though, more than their wages. The remainder, or surplus value, is what causes capitalist profit to arise. It is due to surplus labor that workers labor more than what it takes to produce value equivalent to their wages. For example, if a worker’s wage covers four hours of labor, but he works eight, then the other four hours yield excess value which the capitalist retains as profit.

This process turns money into capital. Money in itself is not money-making, but if invested in production by purchasing labor power and means of production becomes capital, which generates surplus value. Capitalists invest this surplus once more into production, purchasing more labor power and raw materials, always making money.

Unlike C-M-C, in which producers sell a commodity to buy what they need, capitalists operate with M-C-M, in which money is invested not for use but to generate even more money. Through the mechanism of reinvestment, the capitalist class is guaranteed to always accumulate more wealth while workers are trapped relying on wages. It is through this that the capitalist class can consolidate and expand its economic power.