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

=Ruth Gilmore says that racism isn’t just about individual prejudice, it’s built into systems, especially capitalism. She says “racial capitalism” is a system where economic value and social order are structured by race. When she says capitalism will stop being racial capitalism only when “all the white people disappear from the story,” she means that whiteness as a position of power and advantage would need to be dismantled, whiteness here represents a set of unearned privileges and a central role in shaping policies, economies, and norms. So racism and “whiteness” are tied together through systems that benefit white people at the expense of others, especially Black, Indigenous, and other marginalized groups.

According to Gilmore, how does that happen, how does the prison system create new “criminals“? Do you agree with her view?

=Gilmore believes that the criminal justice system doesn’t just respond to crime, it actually helps define and create who counts as a “criminal.” For example, through over-policing, harsh sentencing, and targeting specific communities (especially poor and racialized ones), the system turns social problems like poverty, lack of housing, or unemployment into criminal issues, once labeled a criminal, a person often faces barriers that make it hard to escape the system for example they may lose access to jobs, housing, voting rights, and more, this can trap people in cycles of incarceration and surveillance.
Do I agree? Many people do see truth in this. The fact that similar crimes get different responses based on race or class shows how criminality can be socially constructed not just about what you do, but who you are and how the system sees you.

Describe how your understand what Prof. Gilmore – in the last part of her video – calls “liberation struggle”?

=In the last part of the video, Gilmore talks about “liberation struggle” as a fight for deep, systemic change not just reforms, but freedom from the systems that create suffering, especially racism, poverty, and punishment. It’s not only about getting rid of prisons, but also building a society where people have what they need to live safely and fully like education, healthcare, housing, and dignity. For her, abolition is a positive vision, not just about tearing things down but creating something better, liberation is about collective action, care, and imagining new ways of living together as society beyond punishment and exclusion.

What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what this legal terms means, as it is key to the court’s decision).

= So first Betty Dukes was suing on behalf of all women who had worked at Wal-Mart between 1998 and 2011, she was claiming gender discrimination in pay and promotions but the supreme court ruled against the women because this case failed to meet the rule “23’s commonality requirement”, according to the article it says “a class must not only share a common problem, but also a common solution to that problem, one that would compensate all members equally in a single stroke” this means that the women didn’t have enough in common to be considered a single group for the lawsuit.

Since in a class-action lawsuit, people need to show that all members of the group suffered the same kind of harm because of the same policy or action and for example in this case decisions were made at the store level by individual managers “which goes against of what commonality is and is required” , this means that there was no common issue that ties all these women’s claims together.

1) 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.

=The court system is often better at protecting individual rights than the elected branches of government because judges are supposed to follow the constitution and the law, even when it’s unpopular, elected officials like the president, congress, or a city mayor sometimes focus more on what will get them votes or please their supporters, that idea can mean ignoring or even going against the rights of individuals or minority groups.

An example is the supreme court case Brown v. Board of education which the court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, even though many elected officials, especially in the south, supported segregation, the court protected the rights of african american students when other branches wouldn’t, so this an example of how following the constitution was more important than what the powerful people said or thought

2)Think about how federal judges get to become judges – unlike Presidents, Mayors and members of Congress (and other legislatures), they are not elected, but rather appointed. Many Americans have thus called the federal courts system, and especially the Supreme Court, anti-democratic places in our government. 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? (HINT: think about our discussion of “Federalist #10”, and which social class plays a leading role in our government system.)

=Judges in federal courts, including the supreme court, are not elected, they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate and because of that, some people say the courts are “anti-democratic,” since the public doesn’t vote for them, like in other countries but when it comes to U.S the founders of the U.S. like James Madison (who wrote Federalist #10), were worried about “majority rule” becoming too powerful and ignoring the rights of smaller or less popular groups, they said that a completely democratic system could lead to something like “tyranny of the majority.” So this means that by having judges appointed instead of elected, the system was designed to make sure some people in government wouldn’t be influenced by politics or public pressure, they could focus on the law and the constitution even if their decisions weren’t popular.

Also, many of the people who designed this system were wealthy and educated elites, and they thought that those like them should help lead the country, since they believed they were more “qualified” to make decisions, that is the reason of why the government is the way it is nowadays.

1) 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?

Unlike wars the war on terror has no clear enemy or borders its target is for example terrorist groups that operates across countries and these are hidden within civilians, traditional wars have conflict between nations with clear targets and locations, it also has indefinite duration the war on terror is open-ended like with no timeline or conclusion

2) 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?

= It seem to violate the fourth amendment because this one protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, for this requires warrants based on it, also the fifth one because that secret surveillance without clear judicial oversight might get in trouble that person without that person knowing it.

3)What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

= This one also violates the fourth one because the amendment protects against secret government intrusion and searches and the person must be notified on time “before it happens”, since these warrants allow searches without immediate notice it violates privacy and a proper legal procedure there can be also any kind of abuse and unfair treatment even corruption in the procedures of the case

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

=The establishment clause is found in the first amendment of the U.S constitution which basically says government can not make laws respecting an establishment of religion. The lemon test is a test used to determine if a law violates the establishment clause for example, the law must have a non religious purpose, it does not inhibit religion and so on, basically the lemon test makes sure the establishment clause is not violated

2) Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading.

= Yes it is protected by the first amendment which guarantees freedom of speech, this was established by Gregory Lee Johnson case who burned an american flag as a form of protest. He was arrested back then because it was considered an offense but the supreme court ruled in his favor, they said that flag burning is a form of “symbolic speech” so it is protected by the first amendment

3) What does it mean when someone says “I’m taking the Fifth

= It means that a person can refuse to answer questions because their words can be used as evidence of a crime against them, it is just one way to protect oneself legally

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

= In the federal system citizens are governed by multiple levels of government as the national which is the federal, state and local where citizens can participate in those categories like in elections of representatives of each level. The confederation one is when the states for example come together to form a central government so it looses power and become weak since to make decision it needs consent from the members state so citizens engage with their respective state government as the central authority (the state itself) has limited interaction with the citizens so in this way is different from the federal government that has multiple levels of government. In the unitary system all governmental powers are centered in a central authority that means citizens interact with this central authority because it has the decision making power, it is more like an only branch of power able to do anything

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

=I understand it as a balance needed to avoid excess of power from any branch of power and is needed so people like the president for example can not pass laws with no regulations or else that could harm a nation that follows a constitution

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.

= Federal government can be considered as a support in this case, during the pandemic the federal government had a role of provider it gave funding and resources as financial assistance to the state for public health initiatives, also issued guidelines and recommendations on mask mandates, social distancing and vaccination control and the federal government also facilitated coordination among states. As to NY participated in the Eastern States Multi state council it was a interstate compact formed to coordinate the rollback of economic restrictions and share best practices during the pandemic

which social class wrote the Constitution, and which class was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process?

1) The arguments presented in Readings 6.1 and 6.2 the Constitution was written by the wealthy elite landowners, merchants, and creditors who had a huge interest in protecting their economic power these people were from the upper class, owning property, businesses and so on and debtors were excluded from the process and were not given a voice, people in the working class, small farmers and those not rich had no opportunity to choose the government the wanted

Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain.

2) It is pretty much the same those with financial power have still advantage on the working class for example, the difference is that today the middle and low class are given voice and vote but still the rich ones have priority

Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy?

3) They believed it would lead to instability and threaten their economic interests, they saw too much public participation as a danger, particularly from the lower classes (working class), who might push for wealth redistribution, debt relief, or policies unfavorable to property owners, so basically they put their interests first and they did not want the lower class to has much participation or influence

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

1)= Faction reminds me the social classes that make up our society sinces A faction is a group of individuals who share a common interest, often in opposition to the interests of other groups like the working class for example

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)? This is a key question, because it shows how the authors of the Constitution thought about the difference between different classes of Americans! HINT: focus on the passage that begins: “The diversity in the faculties (WHAT DOES FACULTIES mean or refer to?) of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not les….”

2)= In this context falculties refers to innate abilities, talents or something that makes the person stand out so the authors of the constitution thought that inequality was inevitable in society because this encourages ambition and production and according to James he says that people’s skills and capabilities naturally lead to economic inequality, getting back to the idea that those who are skilled are successful so basically it says that wealth is a result of natural differences among people

Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?

3)= I agree a little with this because i think the way society works forces everyone who does not come from a wealthy family to remain “poor” unless they become somebody skilled and capable and find a way to achieve financial success which is possible and it has happened before

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)= It seems that the core mission of the government is to protect private property. I am not surprised since this was the main idea and reason why the Constitution was created and why the upper class supported it. The founders aimed to defend the economic interests of those who owned wealth and property

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? Hint: think about how this question connects with the social classes…

5)= I am not surprised that it is not in favor of democracy because it supports a small group owning wealth the elite, in a republican government, this elite can protect and continue to uphold this system. If the lower classes were given full democratic control, they might pass laws that redistribute wealth or implement policies that negatively affect the interests of the wealthy. In other words, the republican system limits the power of the poor majority

The statistic on wealth inequality in the US that most impressive me is that just a small percentage of high class people has most of the commodities and wealth and the biggest percentage is the working and middle class and they have almost nothing compared to them, how is it possible that happened? why just a small group of people compared to the rest is so rich? i think that is the way capitalism work, it is just an effect of that system inequality is something that must happen in order to capitalism exist and work

Some implications of living in a society like that is that there is going to be always people in need and people super rich, the working class earning a wage less than the profit earned by their labor, we can see this dynamic in today’s jobs like in restaurants, the daily earnings are high but their payment is low compared to the labor they need to do and the risks they face, many times happen to be some form of labor exploitation when the owners want them to work faster or more without any kind of compensation.