1. Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”.
   The establishment clause is prevents the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another. Everyone should have the ability to choose their own faith and that has nothing to do with the government. The lemon test helps to define if a law violates the clause in any way. Laws must have a secular purpose and cannot over step or violate one’s faiths and the avoid any government >> religion entanglements.
   
2. Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading.
   Yes burning the flag is protected by the first amendment as one has the right to free speech and that is a free form of speech. During the Texas v Johnson case of 1989 the Supreme Court ruled although burning the flag is offensive and withhold a lot of controversy just because one doesn’t agree with it doesn’t mean it can be prohibited.
3. What does it mean when someone says “I’m taking the Fifth”?
   To plead the fifth means to invoke your right to remain silence. This simply helps to protect Individuals from being forced to testify against themselves or self incriminate themselves.

1. Ruth Gilmore says that capitalism will stop being racial capitalism, when all the white people disappear from the story. What’s the connection between “whiteness” and racism, do you think? I think Ruth is expressing that racism is built off of capitalism which is very true and especially throughout the United States being white gives you an unfair advantage others do not have. She strongly believes that the system won’t change until “whiteness” stops being the center of ones story. The center of the story seems to be racism and whiteness and that how society has become organized. That’s the story, being colored is a “consequence”.

2. Gilmore makes the point that criminals are actually being created by the criminal justice and prison system (she says “the category of ‘criminal person’ can be perpetuated”). According to Gilmore, how does that happen, how does the prison system create new “criminals“? Do you agree with her view? Gilomore argument is completely accurate and one I also believe and stand with, she is arguing the justice system labels people particularly people of color and people who do not hav the same financial advantages (less fortunate people or the “poor” are labeled as criminals even for the smallest things. The system understands once labeled it’s hard to navigate through life yet they still continue to hold people bad and set systemic traps for them. She believed that the system is put in place yo do more harm than any good which is absolutely true. The system is set out to leave flames under your feet rathe than to help. And prisons are a set up to create cruel punishment oppose to actually rehabilitating people.

3. Describe how your understand what Prof. Gilmore – in the last part of her video – calls “liberation struggle”? Liberation struggles are people fighting for fairness, actual freedom, and a better society as a unit. The goal isn’t simply to “fix” prison but to change the entirety of the system so everyone can pursue a good life and have a chance at a life without a label on their forehead.

Being a women sometimes you realize that being a women will be a setback but it’s up to you how you find your way around things and for them to work in your favor because as women that’s a sacrifice we have to make. Whether it’s judgment based on what we wear and how it fits our body or simply the fact being a women means “your not as strong as a man”.

Although over a million women participate in class action lawsuit against Walmart the Supreme Court refused to see gender as the main factor of the case based on the legal technicalities and how class action lawsuits work. The Court argued that the women’s experiences were too different to be treated as a single group and they didn’t provide evidence based on the company as a whole showing gender discrimination or any description policies against women so they refused to apply gender in as factor in the case. The women lacked the ability to think outside the box within the case they all were set on solely gender biases oppose to looking at the patterns of this behavior instead of focusing on the decisions of every Walmart manager, this simply made it easier for the court to dismiss the those factors. Essentially, legal procedures are more of a narrow view of what counts as “proof” made it easier for the Court to ignore the bigger picture, more obvious problem of systemic sexism. The lack of proper information & the usage off the factors of the case was why things were not working in their favor. When you bring something to court you have to have proof that is a factor of evidence with your words.

Realistically the constitution was made by the upper class. By wealthy land and property owners with the only intention being to protect their money and assets. The working and lower class individuals were not involved in writing the constitution but forced to follow. Alexander Hamilton was considered of elite status as well as James Madison while enslaved individuals and farmers as the ones in Shays Rebellion was considered a threat and were silenced. In addition ones social status hold a lot od standing evening after they have passed on and times have changed. Like Martin Luther King Jr dream will always be a story to the tell the future generation, Albert Einstein will always be the guy kids aspire to be for his intelligence, Ben frank will always be more than the guy who invented things that has his face on a 100$ bill, and Harriet Tubman would not always just be the the women who helped free fellow slaves and form the Underground Railroad, to have a name people care about means to always have some power even if they are dead and gone. In earlier societies color, power, gender, and more limited you to what you were able to say and do. But also limited if you were able to vote or not and now women have more od a voice, abilities to vote and do more than they were previously subjected to. In all reality if people were able to work together and collaborate this could have alll been avoided. Their were and still are more “poor” and working class people who could’ve took control and power for what they knew was right and what they needed but the lack od knowledge gave the upper class more of an advantage unfortunately. The upper class have a bigger idea of unity than the lower class as everything feel like a competition and everyone is trying to make sure they can survive.

In my opinion factions are more like political parties like the republican party who are groups of people that solely do things for the benefit of themselves like the latest group Elon Musk and Donald Trump whose sole purpose in doing anything is to gain more money and make the “poor” more “poor”.
2. Some people are better at mangment and are meant to excel when the are in charge and are able to. Which is why some people elevate more financially and others do not.
3. I absolutely do not agree, not everyone is poor because of poor choices majority of people don’t have the opportunities at a fair chance. Sometimes your background and lack of stability or funds are your downfall and you have absolutely no control of that.
4. They say the core of the government is to help people but in many instances the government aren’t helping the people that actually need the help. Majority of people assume the government is to provide services but it’s more to the system than just that.
5. The author believed that if everyone voted directly, the lower class might make decisions that take property or power away from the wealthy minority. Decisions should not solely rest within the power of the upper class as the upper class doesn’t have the best intentions for the lower class and that’s why the world is as unbalanced amd filled with bias as it is.

One of the strengths of the U.S. court system is its ability to defend individual rights without being biased oppose to individuals elected by the people.

The court system is better at protecting individual rights because judges are not elected and do not have to worry about backlash from the public. Judges aren’t elected by the public so they don’t have to worry about winning votes or people unpopular to the public which is extremely beneficial because it allows for the law to served based on fairness and overall facts without biased decisions. In contrast, elected officials like members of Congress or the President often focus on what will help them stay in office. For instance Donald Trumps act to get rapper Sheff G out of jail as an attempt to gain more votes and gain popularity within marginalized communities for people to believe he’s “for the people.” However, that was all just an act because when these “leaders” are elected into roles promises and individuals or group rights are neglected. For example, when elected into office he did an entire 360 targeting programs and resources that are put in place to help these communities he worked so hard to get in good faith with. For example, Gideon v. Wainwright which is where your favorite law and order line come in “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” The Court decided that this was a basic part of a fair trial under the Constitution. However elected officials would’ve never agreed to this being passed as their role is in place to discourage less fortunate people not to protect them.

Some people say the Supreme Court is anti-democratic because its justices aren’t chosen by the public or a vote and their power lasts a lifetime. With the reason being judges are independent for the benefit of the justice system. Being a judge comes with the lack of ability to have any biases and to give a verdict based on the evidence and facts of the case with the support of the jury.

In Federalist #10, James Madison said that too much power in the hands of the majority can be dangerous. which is absolutely true and this shows with the way the current elected president is going about things and all the havoc he has caused within the last 4 months alone. This altogether is why the courts have one job and that’s the law without anything else attached.

In a federal system like the US is suppose to be power is divided between national and state governments. Citizens vote for which representatives are elected at different levels like presidents and so forth. However, in a confederation system states hold most power and citizens interact with state governments without the weakness and influence. And within unitary system , the central government have close to all power but citizens are able to interact in a small portion of elections and polices.

Divided power ensures that responsibilities and authority are disturbed across differently levels of government for instance judicial and legislative branches. The US Federal handles governments is the national defense and foreign affairs while the manages education like the DOE which helps with public schooling, college and more as well as transportation. While the local government control things like policing and sanitation like maintaining clean streets or clean ups after weathering.

During Covid the federal government was the shoulder for the people especially in the NYS. The federal government helped to influence the way NYS listened to the information provided to them. To actually oblige to rules and regulations like social distancing and more. The federal government also helped with Federal relief packages including medical help like hospital coverage, unemployment for those who were not able to work, public health guidelines like cdc helping to make the country aware of what’s occurring and how to stay safe, emergency mandates and orders, and lastly deploying temporary resources like temporary hospitals and more.

This demonstrates further that the federal government allows different coordinations between different levels of government. Although the federal government give a lot of support and help citizens a lot it doesn’t overweigh the states and still allow state autonomy decision making.

The RSA a better way of saying abuse of power? The RSA utilizes threats and force help things remain in order , to maintain power/control, and to enforce the law. As an example, 2020 when BLM protests broke out and police used major force to “settle” people down and regain control. This force was done in ways like pepper spray, flash bangs, arrests, and more.
Althusser uses the word “repressive” because RSA institutions gain power and maintain order by using direct physical force and threats to maintain order. They work to suppress opinions and thoughts to obedience and control over the people.

Isa also know as ideological state apparatus which uses logical ideas and culture to help shape beliefs , how things are dealt with, and better yet ways to maintain control without needing to use extensive force. As an example, parents passing down knowledge to their children teaching their children to do the right thing, follow the rules and working hard. The school system, social media platforms like TikTok that have many different political stances and information, the news, religious beliefs, and more help persuade people.

In my opinion they are both two different stances and I believe that sometimes the RSA should be used when dangerous criminals are hurting people but when it’s people standing for what they believe in what’s the point of it? Although they are different they align with one another being the RSA enforces obedience and the ISA just encourages people to willingly accept the government with choice. Which should be a normal thing , people shouldn’t be forced to do anything.

The image included connects to orange man we have in office who has beyond disrespected ones privacy, invaded, ones privacy and simply just went out of his way to hurt and disturb others by force and with threats for his own personal gain