1. I feel that Ruth Wilson Gilmore is saying that “whiteness” and racism are connected because whiteness isn’t just about race, it’s also about power that has been built into society over time. She’s pointing out that racism isn’t only individual attitudes, but more about systems like capitalism and institutions that have historically given white people more advantages and opportunities. So it’s also about how society is structured, not just how people might PERSONALLY think.
2. Gilmore’s point is that the prison system actually helps create “criminals” by deciding what gets labeled as a crime and then targeting certain communities more than others. Things like poverty, lack of resources, and heavy policing in certain neighborhoods lead to more arrests, even if the problems are more structural than personal. Then once someone has a record, it follows them and makes it harder to get a job or housing, which can keep them stuck in the system. I kind of agree with her because it shows how the system can shape who gets labeled as a “criminal,” not just individual actions.
3. When Gilmore talks about “liberation struggle,” she means people coming together to change the bigger systems that create inequality in the first place. It’s not just about fixing individual situations after they happen, but actually challenging things like prisons, policing, and economic systems that produce those inequalities. Basically, it’s about collective action to create real structural change.

Due to the fact that not everyone shared the same legal issue, the court decided to not move forward with one large class-action lawsuit. The women worked in different stores with different managers which made their experiences different. The court justified this by questioning the commonality of the cases being brought to them by these women. Because there wasn’t one clear or shared problem between the women, it weakened their case. Also, the fact that the women wanted money or “back pay” as a solution, weakened their case as well because that required a different kind of class action. I can kind of understand why the courts made this decision, but in the end, I don’t agree with their decision. I think it’s unfair and it makes it harder for people to want to speak out against discrimination at work.

1. The court system is better at protecting individuals because it is more independent and focused on rights. Judges don’t worry about winning elections, so they make decisions based on the Constitution instead of public opinion, unlike politicians. Courts are also able to review laws and actions from Congress, the President, or local governments and decide if they violate someone’s rights. In addition, courts follow procedures and carefully look at evidence, which helps make sure decisions are fair. An example of the court system protecting individuals is if a law seems to limit freedom of speech or religion, the courts can step in and reverse or overturn it.
2. I believe that just because federal court judges are appointed and not elected, this doesn’t make the Supreme Court anti-democratic. I think that federal judges are appointed rather than elected so they can stay independent and not be influenced by public opinion or politics. This connects to when James Madison spoke about factions, or groups of people who might act in their own interest and ignore the rights of others. Elected officials usually follow what the majority wants, which means that they might not always protect minority rights and that’s where courts come in. They review laws and make sure people’s rights are protected. So I don’t think the courts are anti-democratic. They still play an important role in protecting individuals and keeping the government in check.
   

1. Patricia Williams writes in her essay that the war on terror is a new type of war because it isn’t fought the same as a traditional war. In the war on terror, there is no clear field of battle. The battle can happen ANYWHERE. In a traditional war, there are clear fields of battle AND enemies. In addition to this, in the war on terror is not fought against just one country while in traditional wars, it’s usually one country against another. Patricia explains that this is because the government is focused on dealing with people individually instead of whole countries.
2. According to the reading, roving wiretaps in the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights because they allow the government to monitor a person across different devices without being very specific. The article explains that these wiretaps can follow a suspect instead of naming a specific phone or computer, which makes them less precise than traditional warrants. This goes against the First Amendment because people might feel uncomfortable speaking freely if they think their conversations are being monitored. This could also have some affect on the Fourth Amendment, which requires searches to be clearly defined and specific.
3. From the reading, “sneak and peek” warrants go against and violate some amendments as well. It violates the Fourth Amendment because the article states that, “Sneak-and-peek warrants allow law enforcement to search a home and delay notifying the owner that the search has taken place.” This means that it allows the police to search someone’s house without letting them know right away or even after the fact.

1. To my understanding, the Establishment Clause states that the government can’t make or support any specific religion. The Lemon Test is used to make sure the government stays neutral about religion and it’s broken up into a three part check.
2. According to the Supreme Court case, Texas v. Johnson, burning the U.S flag IS protected by the first amendment. This is because they considered flag burning to be a form of symbolic speech and this is protected by the First Amendment. This means that even if some people find it to be offensive or disrespectful, it would still count as an opinion and a person can’t be punished just because they have an unpopular opinion.
3. When someone says they’re “taking the Fifth”, this means that they are using their right under the Fifth Amendment to refusing answering a question. This is because their answer could get them into trouble or make them look guilty even if they’re not.
   

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

• federal: power is shared between the national government and states. 
• confederation: power is held by states or regional governments. 
• unitary: national government holds most of the power.

2. Briefly explain how you understand the system of division of power.

Division of power is the way a government splits power so that no single group has ALL of it and keeps only one level of government from becoming too powerful. 

3. 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.

The federal government shapes the actions of state and local governments by offering support in cases of emergency and providing funding. During the Covid-19 Pandemic, the federal government was able to provide federall funding that helped to pay for health care, testing, vaccines and schools. They were also able to provide emergency support and resources nationally such as medical supplies, testing resources and financial resources. 

1. Based on readings 6.1 an 6.2, the people who wrote the Constitution were mostly from the wealthy upper class. Many of them were landowners, merchants, and investors who had a lot of property and money. They had the power to take part in writing the Constitution because of this. For example, Beard explains that many of the framers owned government bonds, so they supported a stronger government that would make sure debts were paid back. The lower class people were mostly excluded from this process. Farmers, workers, women and people without property did not have a voice or a choice in writing the Constitution. Parenti also states that in early America, only property-owning white men were usually allowed to vote, which meant that most people didn’t have much political power.
2. The social class structure in early United States society was different from today. In the past, political power was connected to wealth and property. Many groups of people could not vote or participate in government. Today, more people have the right to vote and be involved in things like politics regardless of of their wealth. However, the readings do suggest that economic power can still influence politics today, so social class can still play a role in political influence today.
3. The people who wrote the Constitution were afraid of too much democracy because they thought that if poor people had a lot of political power, they might vote for laws that mainly helped themselves financially. For example, they might support laws that forgave debts or took property from wealthy people. Many of the framers were wealthy property owners and because of this, they wanted to protect their money and their land. They created a government system that limited direct democracy and gave more control to elected representatives instead of letting people vote on everything directly.

1. The concept that “faction” reminds me of is interest groups or political parties. A faction is basically a group of people who share the same interests or opinions and try to influence government decisions to benefit themselves. In Federalist #10, Madison explains that factions form because people have different interests, beliefs, and economic situations. This is similar to how political parties or interest groups today support policies that help their own goals.
2. According to Federalist #10, the source of wealth is private property. Madison explains that differences in wealth come from the “diversity in the faculties of men.” In simple terms, this means people have different abilities, talents, and chances in life. Because of these differences, some people gain more property and wealth while others have less. Madison believed these natural differences are what create different social and economic classes.
3. I partly agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty, but I think it is more complicated these days. People do have different abilities and opportunities, which can affect how much wealth they gain. However, other factors like education, social background, and economic conditions also play a big role in whether someone becomes wealthy or remains poor. Wealth differences are not only about personal abilities because of this.
4. According to Madison in Federalist #10, the core mission (“first object”) of government is protecting the rights of property. This means the government should protect people’s property and wealth from being taken away unfairly. This idea can be a little surprising because today many people think the government’s main role is to serve the public, provide services, and protect rights for everyone, not just protect property. However, when the Constitution was written, protecting property was seen as very important.
5. It is not very surprising that Madison supported a republic instead of a pure democracy. He believed that in a pure democracy, the majority, especially poor people, might use their power to pass laws that harm wealthy property owners. For example, they might support policies that take property or wealth from the rich. Because of this concern, Madison believed a representative government would help control factions and prevent just one group from having too much power. This system would protect different social classes and create more stability in government.

1. The statistic on wealth inequality that stood out to me the most was that the top 1 percent own between 40 and 50 percent of the nation’s total wealth. I feel like this is something many people don’t know because they dont care enough to look into it. This stands out to me because there are so many people who are poor and make even less than the lower social class. If they had even one percent of what that top one percent was making, they’d be set. These people have no business having this much money.
2. Seeing these statistics makes me realize how wealth isn’t distributed fairly. It also means that everyone gets different opportunities. We know that social class is based on things like where you live, your education, etc. Not everyone gets the chance to live in a good neighborhood, which will then lead them to a good school. Not everyone gets the opportunity to get into a good school which will give them a good education and get them a better job in the future. As long as wealth isn’t distrubuted properly, neither will anything else like equal opportunities. With the right amount of hard work AND money, everyone would be able to have a better chance at a better life. Some areas that have more money might have better security. Some areas with more money might have more better trained authorities than other places. People with more money get better lawyers that they get to choose. Other people that don’t have as much money get appointed lawyers by the court that barely fight for them. So this dynamic definitely plays out in everyday life.