What’s the connection between “whiteness” and racism, do you think?

1. The connection between whiteness and racism, I believe, is due to the ongoing racial practices that are created or held by a majority of white individuals. Capitalism, for example, which is built by white people, was built around the idea of inequality, and racism is a key way to maintain it. This is due to capitalism being built on racial hierarchies.
   
   According to Gilmore, how does that happen, how does the prison system create new “criminals“? Do you agree with her view?
   
2. According to Gilmore, the prison system creates new prisoners by concentrating surpluses. She states the local elites use the state to maintain a continuous flow of individuals categorized as criminals. Either by creating more prisoners or deepening how long they are kept in prison. The prison system maintains a steady stream of individuals who are criminalized, which in the end impacts communities, creating more criminals. As an example of this, she states that in the early 1980s, California started to build prison after prison rather than build universities, factories, museums etc. I agree with her view on this, as the prison system, even in this current age, has yet to provide any proper rehabilitation of criminals. Prison systems in the U.S. continue to focus on keeping prisoners as criminals rather than rehabilitating them into citizens. There are places such as Sweden which see a decline in re-offenders due to their push for rehabilitation over punishments.
   
   Describe how your understand what Prof. Gilmore – in the last part of her video – calls “liberation struggle”?
   
3. My understanding of what prof. Gilmore calls the “liberation struggle” an effort by groups in local communities to create justice and freedom for marginalized communities to end systemic oppression.

What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision?

1. The Supreme Court decided in a split 5-4 decision that the class represented in the Dukes v. Walmart failed to meet class action’s rule twenty-three’s commonality requirements. To justify this action, the Supreme Court stated that since not all women working at Walmart dealt with the same problems, they could not fulfill the results equally to all in the claim. They must all share common questions that affect their claims in order for there to be equal resolution.
   

In what ways is the court system better suited to protect the individual, than are the elected branches of government (such as Congress and the President; or the Mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly)? Give an example to illustrate your argument.

1. The court system is better suited to protecting the individual, than are the elected branches, due to federal judges being appointed for life rather than voted in. This prevents them from dealing with the pressures of both politics and electoral cycles. Judges can then focus more on upholding the constitutional rights of the people rather than fear of backlash from voters and donors. A good example of this would be Brown v. Board of education 1954, as this was a landmark case where the supreme court sided with the equality of man and ruled against segregated schools. This not only allowed people of color to attend schools with whites but helped lead to the end of Jim Crow laws in the education system. Even without unanimous agreement among citizens, the supreme court made their decision to defend the rights of all.
   
   Do you agree that the Supreme Court, for example, is an anti-democratic part of our government? What could be the reason for this way of choosing judges in federal courts?
   
2. I can agree that the Supreme Court can be seen as anti-democratic due to the justices being appointed instead of elected and can serve indefinitely, unlike officials in the legislative or executive branches. A nomination of a Supreme Court justice comes from the president and the approval must be obtained through the senate. This goes against the idea of democracy as we the people have no say In who is appointed, and the nominee could get this position through favoritism rather than proper qualifications. The reason that judges are chosen in this manner is so the parties who are in control at the time can sway outcomes in their favor. The parties are Democrats or Republicans, who have majority seating within the legislature. However, Federalist #10 has argued that “factions”, which are groups of people that develop due to democracy, can easily ignore the rights of the minority. The majority will always care for their own interests rather than that of the people as a whole, which the current system of the supreme court seems to follow. Federalist #10 feels that although it is not democratic to have judges not elected and serving for life, this would be beneficial as they can focus on the law and fairness rather than popular opinion.

P. Williams writes in her essay, that the war on terror is a new type of a war. What’s new about it, how is it different from traditional wars?

1. P. Williams emphasizes the structure of new wars compared to traditional, focusing on their legal, ideological, and uniqueness in her writing. With terrorism comes harsher laws without the application of usual evidence and rights. We move from wars in fixed locations to wars without national borders, which leads to complications of military engagement and accountability. Paranoia is instilled and once civil people follow their fears and are more likely to agree with the new harshness of the war on terror.
   
   In what ways does the “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights? Which amendment(s) does it seem to violate and why?
   
2. The “Roving Wiretaps” of the patriot act violates the Bill of Rights Fourth amendment. This amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, while the wiretaps go against this as they do not need a warrant to commit it. This can even affect anyone who comes into casual contact with a suspect invading their right to privacy.
   
   What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?
   
3. “Sneak and peek” warrants also violate the Fourth amendment as they allow delayed and covert searches. This goes against the unreasonable searches and seizures the amendment protects. If the law suspects you of a crime, they may commit any convert searches of your personal property without the need of notifying you.
   

Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”.

1. My understanding of the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test” is as such; both were created to separate religion from being used by the government. The Establishment Clause prohibits the creation or promotion of state-sponsored religions. This prevents any state from forcing its citizens to follow a religion of their choosing. With the Lemon Test, its main goal is to decide whether a law or other government action that might promote a particular religious practice should be allowed to stand. This helps prevent laws from advancing religious practice and halt government entanglement with religion.
   
   Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading.
   
2. The burning of the flag is considered a protected freedom of the first amendment as long as it pertains to a method of free speech. The first case that challenged this concept was Texas v. Johnson, which was won in favor of it being a symbolic way of expressing speech. Gregory Lee Johnson, who was a member of various pro-communist and anti-war groups, set the flag on fire while at a protest near the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. The courts ruled that his actions were part of his right to freedom of speech.
   
   What does it mean when someone says “I’m taking the Fifth”?
   
3. When using the term “taking the Fifth”, you are using your right to remain silent, as this is a protection against self-incrimination. As people have the right not to give evidence in court, or to law enforcement officers, that might constitute an admission of guilt.

Describe the primary differences in the role of citizens in government, among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems.

1. The primary differences in the role of citizens in the government are as such: in the federal system all systems established in which there are two of, are elected by the people and each level is assigned different functions. An example of one of these systems is the national government, which is responsible for handling matters that affect the country as a whole, and defending the nation against foreign threats is one example of this. The unitary system, on the other hand, makes subnational governments dependent on the national government. A central authority has the most power, and local governments are limited in power. Citizens in this system have less influence on governance and play almost no role in who is elected. Finally, in a confederation, authority is decentralized and the central government’s ability to act depends on the consent of the subnational governments. States have more power here while the national government is subordinate and weak. Citizens have more influence here through their state governments and have a more direct impact on decisions made. This system maximizes regional self-rule at the expense of effective national governance.
   
   Briefly explain how you understand the system of division of power.
   
2. My understanding of the system of division of power is that it is a system in which the authority of the government and its people is not held by one singular power. It is split between branches to create a balance.
   
   How does the federal government shape the actions of state and local governments? Write your answer based on doing a bit of research on how the federal government has influenced the actions of NY state and local governments, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
   
3. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the federal government shaped the NY state and local governments by creating financial and regulatory boundaries, as well as providing much-needed critical resources, although this tended to be very inconsistent at times. The aftermath of the federal government’s involvement created lasting changes. As an example, funding for community health centers and language-access programs is becoming permanent, with stricter health guidelines and a better understanding of resource competition and NY’s vulnerabilities during pandemics.

What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of?

1. Faction reminds me of the concept of social class. The idea of a faction is when a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, become united by some common impulse of passion or of interest. Social class is similar in the sense that individuals are separated into a majority or minority group and are united by similar interests. The wealthy group with the wealthy, the working class are grouped with the working class and so on.
   
   According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), what is the source of wealth (private property)? What factor explains why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property, and others don’t (thus remaining poor)?
   
2. According to Federalist #10, sources of wealth are the faculties of men, which allow them to own property. Faculties are the abilities and rights to acquire properly which naturally have differing interests and opinions. They use whatever abilities and means to gain wealth and build open their expanse of property. The wealthy can share information, gather information on ways to continue to gain more capital, advantages the working class do not have. The poor, not being able to afford to learn or grow, stay stagnant and stuck in jobs that barely cover living expenses.
   
   Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?
   
3. I do agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty. The wealthy have the ability to obtain their own property while those in poverty struggle to even hold on to what they already have. The wealthy do not want the poor to own property. Instead, they wish to use their need for it to help them continue to gain more wealth.
   
   What is the core mission (“first object”) of the US government? Does this surprise you, does it sound different from what our society today seems to suggest the core mission of the government is? Explain.
   
4. The mission or “first object” of the US government is the protection of the faculties of men. I am not surprised by this, as the government as well as the constitution were created and run by wealthy individuals with goals that aligned with their own freedoms and wealth. This is no different in society today: the government is still run by the wealthy and their goals still align with benefiting just the wealthy.
   
   Given the discussion in questions 1-4, are you surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy, and supports a Republican (representative) form of government? Why would d the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government?
   
5. I am not surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy and supports a republican form of government. The author would dislike a pure democratic form of government as it only consists of a few citizens who assemble and administer the government in person who bring no cure for the mischiefs of a faction. A Republic, on the other hand, opens a different prospect and promises a cure. Democracy builds around the wealthy and focuses solely on the wealthy, while a republican focuses on the people as a whole.

Based on the arguments presented in Readings 6.1 and 6.2, which social class wrote the Constitution, and which class was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process? In your comment, make sure you clearly specify the difference between the two classes by giving examples from the readings.

1. Based on the arguments presented in readings 6.1 and 6.2 a wealthy class labeled “gentlemen” wrote the constitution and excluded the working class. By their definition, you had to have ownership over a specified amount of property as well as, depending on the state, have a worth of more than $1,000. An example of these wealthy “gentlemen” were those who held seats in legislation, such as governors and senators. The majority of individuals who were excluded are all those who lacked sufficient property. As an example, this mostly consisted of people of color, indentured servants and even white males.
   
   Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain
   
2. The social class structure of early United States society compared to our current definitely differs. The gap between the wealthy, middle, and the working class has expanded even further, making it more difficult for them to obtain a standard of living. An example of this would be how the middle class used to have proper access to healthcare, housing, and essential services now struggling to obtain stability in these factors just as the working-class.
   
   Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy? Hint: think about how to answer this question by discussing it in terms of social classes.
   
3. The people who wrote the constitution were afraid of democracy due to what they called the insurgent spirit. They felt the over-abundance of working-class individuals would band together and create anarchy. The working class held the majority as the wealthy capitalist class continued to reap the benefits of their work and slowly became more of the minority. As such, they wanted to focus on strengthening the national government instead of the people to keep away the idea of despotism, which is when a single individual rules with absolute power from them.
   

Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p. 29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why?

1. The statistic: The top 1 percent own between 40 and 50 percent of the nation’s total wealth. More than that, the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent made the biggest impression on me. This statement shows how really vast the gap in wealth really is compared to my understanding of what I believed it was. This not only gives me more insight into my perspective but a better understanding of the notion that you are either born rich or you are born poor.
   
   What could be some of the implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities? Do you see this dynamic getting played out in everyday life in our society? How so? Example?
   
   2) Some of the implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities are such: the rich control the rate of technological development and the availability of livelihoods. The working-class individual will have less and less of a choice in the environments they wish to live and work in, while the rich continue to buy land, resources and push out who they consider a lower class than they are. I do see this dynamic getting played out in everyday life in society. Business owners will take advantage of the working class, knowing they need the jobs and money just to get through the day to day. Workers deal with bosses or business owners berating them and threats of unemployment. As for the rich, you are easily replaceable.