1. What specific aspects make the court system superior to the elected branches in safeguarding individual rights? The court system provides better protection of individual rights because its structure keeps it free from political influence. The elected branches including Congress and city governments typically represent the majority will which occasionally leads to minority rights violations. Federal judges along with other judges enjoy complete freedom from electoral pressures and public approval concerns. The court can maintain its focus on constitutional interpretation and individual rights protection despite widespread public disapproval.

The Supreme Court made its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) to declare racial segregation in public schools as unconstitutional. The majority of elected representatives during that period either ignored the issue or actively backed segregation. The Court acted to defend Black students’ rights despite facing powerful opposition during that time.

2. Does the Supreme Court operate against democratic principles? Why are judges appointed rather than elected to their positions? The Supreme Court operates as an anti-democratic institution because its members receive lifetime appointments and do not face public elections. But that’s intentional. The founders established judicial independence to protect judges from political influences so they could follow the Constitution instead of public sentiment or current political movements.

Federalist #10 discusses the risks that emerge when majorities exercise power and when factions form. Direct election of all government branches would allow majority groups to control decision-making and suppress minority opinions. The appointment process of judges serves as a protection mechanism against majority rule by transferring authority to individuals who must limit the other branches. The judiciary maintains its connection to elite values and interests because its appointments originate from the President and Senate although this relationship does not eliminate all political influence.

1. P. Williams explains in her paper that the war on terror represents a contemporary form of warfare. The author explains both the innovative aspects and the distinctions between this modern conflict and conventional military operations.

The main differences between traditional wars and the war on terror according to Patricia Williams include undefined enemies and absent formal declarations of war and fixed battlefields. The contemporary warfare exists as a conflict between nations that opposes terrorist organizations which operate without borders and blend into civilian areas.

This new kind of war is also open-ended. The lack of defined endpoints in this war makes it difficult to determine successful outcomes. This development merges military operations with law enforcement activities while creating confusion between combat zones and domestic areas. The transformation of legal frameworks regarding rights protection along with national security powers becomes critical because governments use national security as justification to expand their authority.

2. Does the Patriot Act’s “Roving Wiretaps” provision break the Bill of Rights through any specific violations? Which amendment(s) does it seem to violate and why? The “Roving Wiretaps” provision enables investigators to monitor suspects through various devices without needing separate warrants for each new communication device or computer system. The provision seems effective for its purpose yet creates constitutional problems.

The Fourth Amendment appears to be violated because “Roving wiretaps” fail to meet the requirements of specifying what will be searched and seized while also being deemed unreasonable. The implementation of roving wiretaps generates constitutional concerns because these warrants lack specific targets and locations thus enabling uncontrolled and unspecified surveillance.

3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?

Under the “Sneak and Peek” warrant system law enforcement can conduct searches without initially disclosing their presence to property owners. The authorities can conduct searches and take photographs while making copies of materials while keeping the person unaware of the search until weeks or months later.

The Fourth Amendment seems to be violated through these search practices because it requires immediate notification about searches and seizures and sets limits on what constitutes reasonable searches. Critics maintain that these warrants damage both transparency and due process because individuals lack the opportunity to contest or learn about the search until it is already too late.

1. Describe your interpretation of the “Establishment Clause” alongside its associated “Lemon Test.” The Establishment Clause within the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any laws that establish religious preference. The government must remain impartial toward religion because it cannot back any religious practices nor show preference for religious beliefs over non-religious beliefs. The Establishment Clause exists to maintain separation between religious institutions and public government operations. The Supreme Court established the Lemon Test through its Lemon v. Kurtzman decision in 1971. The Court uses this three-part test to determine whether a law breaks the Establishment Clause requirements:

A law requires a secular goal as its main objective.

The law neither supports nor restricts religious activities.

The government must avoid creating excessive religious involvement through its programs.

A law becomes unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause whenever it fails to meet any of these requirements.

2. The First Amendment protects flag burning as free speech according to the relevant court case presented in the reading.

Burning the U.S. flag enjoys First Amendment protection as free speech. The Supreme Court established this precedent through their Texas v. Johnson decision in 1989. The American flag underwent a burning process during a political demonstration by Gregory Lee Johnson. The Court sided with him after he faced arrest under a Texas law that prohibited flag desecration.

The court’s majority decision established that flag burning serves as a form of expressive conduct and political speech which enjoys fundamental protection under the First Amendment. Free speech protection exists even though certain expressions might offend others or gain little popular support.

3. What does it mean when someone says “I’m taking the Fifth”?

A person who states “I’m taking the Fifth” exercises their Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid self-incrimination. A person who invokes this right will not respond to questions because their statements could potentially become evidence against them in court proceedings.

The legal protection prevents individuals from testifying or offering evidence which could result in their own conviction. The protection extends to all situations that involve trials as well as hearings and congressional investigations.

1. What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of? The concept of “faction” in Federalist #10 is closely connected with social class contradictions and economic inequality which were discussed earlier in connection with the adoption of the Constitution. A faction is a group of persons, having common interest, the type of group which has interest that may be incompatible with that of other persons. This is especially so in the case of economic class, for instance, the rich against the poor. This is in harmony with the earlier discussions of how the Founding Fathers established the government in a way that hindered the power of the ordinary people and protected the power of the wealthy. 2. In Federalist #10, 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)? In Federalist #10, Madison explains that the source of wealth and private property is the difference in the natural abilities of individuals, their talents, and faculties. The passage states: “The source of this inequality of property (unlike that of moral equality) is not so simple as to admit of a precise definition. In this case, ‘faculties’ means people’s natural intellect, zeal, and talents. According to Madison, since every individual is created different in intellect and zeal, some will accumulate wealth and others will not. This explanation tells us that economic disparity is a natural and inevitable occurrence in society. Nevertheless, this also tells us about the views that the authors of the Constitution had towards wealth and poverty – they thought that the wealthy had their property coming to them because they were more gifted, and the poor did not have property because they did not have the same faculties. This view does not consider other factors like systemic barriers, lack of education, or inherited wealth that are also causes of economic disparity. 3. Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty? Madison’s explanation is only correct to some extent and, at the same time, incorrect. It is true that, to a certain extent, the talents and efforts of people can lead to financial success. However, economic status, social equity, education, and the availability of resources are also a major determinant of who gets rich and who stays poor. For instance, someone from a high income family has a better chance of attending better schools, having contact with professionals and financial support than someone from a low income family who will be faced with more barriers even with the same intelligence. Furthermore, other social factors like race, gender, and workplace harassment also affect economic outcomes. Hence, there is no doubt that talent helps, but wealth is also a function of social and structural factors that Madison did not consider. 4. What is the primary purpose (first object) of the U.S. government? Does this surprise you? Does it vary from what our society today believes to be the primary purpose of the government? From Federalist #10 we can see that the primary purpose (“first object”) of government is to protect property. To this end, Madison argues that since economic inequalities are inherent in society, the role of government should be to shield the property owners’ interests and not to equalize the economy. This perspective may be surprising because today, the government is often seen as having a broader role — to protect not only property but also individual rights, the general welfare, and social justice. We live in a modern democratic society and we value freedom, equality, and protection of civil rights. Nevertheless, in practice, the government remains biased towards economic concerns, for instance, supporting business, cutting taxes for the rich, and having the latter influence politics through lobbying. This shows that although the public debate on democracy and equality has developed, the government’s economic focus is still in line with Federalist #10. 5. Are you surprised that Federalist #10 is not democratic and favours a Republican (representative) form of government, and the author is against (pure) democracy? Why would the author not want a (pure) democratic form of government? It is not surprising that Federalist #10 is against direct democracy and prefers a Republican (representative) form of government. This was because Madison was worried that in a direct democracy the majority of people (who were predominantly poor and without property) would use their power to influence the passage of laws that would risk the wealth and property of the elite class. He regarded democracy as a threat to property owners because the low income people would demand the sharing of wealth or other changes in the economy that would erode the power of the rich. Rather, Madison supported a kind of representative democracy in which the decision-making process would be made by elected politicians, who were likely to be from the higher income and education bracket. This system guaranteed that the elite would keep the power while giving the appearance of citizen participation. This dislike of direct political power for the masses was further encouraged by the fear of mob rule and lower class uprisings such as Shays’ Rebellion. This goes back to our discussion on social classes: The authors of the Constitution created the government to safeguard the rights of the elite, and to prevent the lower classes from exercising too much influence. This idea is still present in the American politics of today, as the economic elites and corporations still exert a disproportionate influence on the laws and policies.

1. In Readings 6.1 and 6.2, the arguments presented support the claim that the elite landowning and merchant class wrote the Constitution, and the other class which was excluded from this process is the working class, poor farmers, enslaved people, women, and Indigenous peoples. The Constitution was written by the elite landowning and merchant class which included wealthy plantation owners, lawyers and businessmen. These individuals, who were often called the Federalist elite, had a good deal of economic power and wanted to create a government that would guarantee their position, especially as regards property and order. Many of the Founding Fathers, such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, were part of this privileged class, and they were wary of the lower orders in politics. On the other hand, the working class, poor farmers, enslaved people, women, and Indigenous peoples were barred from the Constitutional convention. The landless, poor, and indebted people, many of whom had served in the army during the Revolutionary War, had no say in the formation of the new government. Stuents, women, and enslaved people had no voice in politics. Also, Native Americans were completely shut out from the legal system of the new republic. The distinction between these two classes was that the Constitution was meant to guarantee the rights of the wealthy and prevent the lower classes from directly exercising their political rights. 2. Do you think the social class structure of early United States society was the same as ours today or rather different? Explain. Although some features can be common between the social class structure of the early United States and the present world, there are some differences. As it was in the 18th century, wealth and power were exercised by a few elite in both the current world and the founding era; the modern elite comprises of corporate tycoons, political kings and billionaires. There is also a similarity in the levels of income inequality; the present levels of income inequality are reminiscent of the class structure of the past. However, there are differences. In the 18th century, there were legal barriers to participation, such as the property vote. Today, everyone is legally entitled to vote and stand for election, independent of their social status, skin color or gender, although economic power is still a major determinant of political power. Where early America was an agrarian society with a clear cut social structure based on the ownership of land, the economy of the present world is industrial and technological, and wealth is generated through companies and the financial sector. Therefore, although democracy has been expanded since the time of the Constitution, there are still some obstacles such as economic inequality and elite political power which makes the two classes system of today and that of the early United States completely different and at the same time completely the same. 3. Why did those who wrote the Constitution fear democracy? The framers of the Constitution were terrified of full democracy because they associated it with the mob and turmoil, especially the mob from the poor people. Many of them, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, feared that if too much power was given to the general population, especially to the heavily in debt farmers and workers, they would enact policies that would be detrimental to the wealthy elite. The Shays’ Rebellion of 1786-1787 which was a revolt by farmers who could not pay taxes increased these fears because it showed that the lower class had the capability of forming a rebellion. To avoid direct democratic control, the framers put in place the following measures to prevent the lower classes from having a say in government: The Electoral College was proposed to avoid a direct election by the population to the presidency. Senators were chosen by state legislatures and not by the people, thus the elite kept on controlling the government. The judicial branch was protected from public influence because Supreme Court justices were not elected but appointed. The House of Representatives was directly chosen by the people but they had shorter terms and less power than the Senate. In other words, the fear of democracy was based on the social class lemma; the rich were scared that a government by the people would endanger their position. Instead of establishing a direct democracy, the Constitution was meant to create a republic in which the power of the elite would be guaranteed while the majority would have something to say.