Ruth Wilson Gilmore’s statement that capitalism will stop being “racial capitalism” only when “all the white people disappear from the story” is not meant to be taken literally but rather as a critique of how “whiteness” functions structurally within systems of power. Whiteness, in this context, is less about skin color and more about a position of privilege and dominance built into economic and political institutions. Racial capitalism refers to how capitalism has always depended on racial hierarchies to extract labor, control populations, and justify inequality. Whiteness has historically been used to define who benefits from wealth, freedom, and protection, and who is excluded or exploited. Gilmore is highlighting that until these racialized structures of power are dismantled, capitalism will continue to function in racially unjust ways. In this view, whiteness and racism are deeply interconnected because whiteness has been constructed as the “norm” or ideal that other groups are measured and often punished against.

Gilmore also argues that the criminal justice system does not just punish crime, but actively produces and reproduces the category of the “criminal.” She says that institutions like prisons don’t just respond to crime they help shape who is seen as dangerous, disposable, or beyond help. This happens through policing practices, biased laws, sentencing disparities, and economic abandonment of poor and racialized communities. When whole communities are surveilled, criminalized, and incarcerated for minor offenses or acts of survival, it reinforces the idea that certain people, especially poor Black and Brown people, are inherently criminal. Over time, this creates a cycle where people are labeled as criminals, denied opportunities, and then pushed back into behaviors that the system punishes again. I think Gilmore’s view is powerful and accurate—many people are caught in a cycle not because of who they are, but because of how the system is built to manage inequality by criminalizing poverty and race.

In the final part of her video, Gilmore talks about “liberation struggle” as a broad, collective effort to transform the world not just to reform unjust systems like prisons or policing, but to create new systems rooted in care, equity, and justice. Liberation, as she describes it, isn’t just about freeing individuals from prison it’s about freeing communities from the conditions that make prisons seem necessary in the first place. This includes access to housing, healthcare, education, and meaningful work. It means ending the systems that profit from suffering and building a world where people can thrive without punishment being the main tool for dealing with social problems. Gilmore’s vision of liberation is deeply hopeful and radical it’s not just about fixing the old system, but imagining and building something entirely better.

In Wal-Mart v. Dukes (2011), the Supreme Court ruled against a group of around 1.5 million women who wanted to file a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart for gender discrimination. The Court said the group could not move forward as a class because they failed to prove “commonality”, a legal requirement that all members of a class share a common issue that can be resolved in one stroke for everyone. The women argued that Wal-Mart’s corporate culture allowed for discrimination, but the Court said there wasn’t enough proof of a company-wide policy of discrimination. Instead, decisions were made at the local level by individual managers, so the experiences of the women were too different to be treated as a single case.

The decision made it harder for large groups of employees to bring class-action lawsuits against employers. The Court said that in order for a class to be certified, there needs to be clear evidence that all members of the group were affected in the same way by a common practice or policy. Because the women’s cases involved different managers and different stores, the Court felt they didn’t meet this standard. This ruling raised the bar for proving commonality in future class-action lawsuits, especially in workplace discrimination cases.

The federal government issued guidelines and mandates that affected state and local actions. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided recommendations on mask-wearing and social distancing, which states like New York implemented through executive orders. Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the “New York State on PAUSE” executive order, mandating non-essential businesses to close and enforcing social distancing measures .

Moreover, disputes arose when the federal government attempted to rescind allocated funds. In May 2025, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from canceling over $1.1 billion in unspent COVID-19 relief aid earmarked for U.S. elementary and secondary schools. This ruling allowed the funds to remain available during legal proceedings, highlighting the judiciary’s role in resolving conflicts between federal and state interests .

In a federal system, such as that of the United States, citizens engage with multiple levels of government—local, state, and federal. This structure allows for a distribution of power, enabling citizens to participate in governance at various tiers, fostering a more direct influence on policies that affect their daily lives.

In a confederation, power is predominantly held by individual states or regions, with a central authority having limited authority. Citizens in such systems often have more influence over their local governments but less direct impact on national policies, as the central government has limited power to enact laws that affect the entire country.

In a unitary system, central government holds the primary authority, and any administrative divisions (like states or provinces) derive their powers from the central government. Citizens typically engage with local governments that implement policies set by the central authority, often resulting in less direct influence over national policy decisions.

To me the division of power refers to how authority and responsibilities are distributed among different levels of government. In a federal system, this division is constitutionally defined, with certain powers reserved for the national government, others for state governments, and some shared between the two. This structure aims to balance the benefits of a strong central government with the advantages of local governance, allowing for a system of checks and balances that can address diverse needs and prevent the concentration of power. For example, During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government significantly influenced state and local governments, including those in New York, through funding and policy directives.

Madison argues in this paper that the ‘diversity in the faculty on man’ is the driving cause of where the ‘rights of property originate’. In essence this is an argument imposed by the leaders of societies throughout history, namely that there is a certain virtue or natural order to those in the ruling class. No doubt Madison envisioned this difference in faculty as a reasoned argument for outlining that a republic governed by those with superior faculty is far superior a governmental framework than a democracy where the populist power lies with those of inferior faculty. 

Ironically for a group that viewed themselves as a dispossessed people being ruled under a foreign monarchy, the integration of a social order defined by ‘faculty’ imposes the arbitrary and moralist rationale to a people that sought to remove themselves from the oppressive yoke of absolute monarchy. If anything this is just the next evolution of thinking from monarchy to republic, ruling by define order to ruling by superior nature, an argument that differs little and seeks to oppress the majority. The core mission of the US government as outlined is to ‘protect the diverse faculties of individuals’ and in doing so the ‘rights of property that arise from them. This is unsurprising and mirrors the individualistic and property-owning focus of social and political laws in the 21^st century. To separate the ‘propertyless multitude’ from democratic power makes absolute sense from the founding fathers perspective. The ‘superior faculty’ argument that Madison makes in support of republic rule reflects the prejudicial attitudes clearly embodied to the majority of the population, with explicit othering of certain minority groups and women with the derisive view of those lacking in education; enforces the idea that the majority of the population lack the ability by nature or education to effectively govern a nation.

As outlined in the readings the constitution was written by the ‘gentlemen class’ or ‘propertied class’ a minority of the population consisting of no more than roughly 10%. In contrast the ‘propertyless multitude’ can be categorized as the ‘Majority Faction’ class. The framework of the constitution outlining that this small ‘gentlemen class’ were the only individuals that had the right to vote, comprised exclusively by white male property owners. The ‘Majority Faction’ comprised of all other groupings that did not hold the rights extended to this ‘propertied class’, Native Americans, African Americans and women were barred from constitutional equality, but also most white men who could not qualify for voting under the ‘property tests’ in the state constitutions and laws. 

2. The class structure of the early United States reflects the current social inequality within American society in the 21^stcentury. Despite clear gains in social mobility through emancipation, the suffragette movement and universal voting rights for citizens over the age of eighteen; the bourgeoisie still benefit the most in our capitalist society and reflect the same social class differentials of that in the 18^th century. The property-owning class have an unequal amount of political and social leveraging, through lobbying and campaign financing of politicians the same small percentage of elites exsert undue influence in the same way the propertied class of the 18^th century did. 

True democracy would have been a direct threat to the economic and political dominance of the propertied class who composed the constitution. By seeking to defend the interests of the ‘wealthy few’ in opposition to the ‘laboring many’ the framers of the constitution outlined an explicit desire to minimize the power of the disenfranchised class which would only serve to shift the balance of power where a true democracy be allowed to develop. 

In her essay, Patricia Williams argues that the War on Terror represents a new and different kind of war, distinct from traditional wars in several important ways. Traditional wars are typically fought between nations, with formal declarations, identifiable enemies, and defined geographic battlefields. The War on Terror, however, lacks a clear enemy or front lines. It targets non-state actors like terrorist organizations, making it difficult to determine where the war is being fought or who exactly the enemy is. Furthermore, this new kind of war has no definitive beginning or end—it is open-ended and ongoing, with no clear terms for victory. Williams also points out that the War on Terror has led to expanded government power and a dangerous erosion of civil liberties at home. Unlike previous wars that were fought mostly abroad, this war involves significant domestic surveillance, detention without trial, and legal ambiguity, blurring the lines between law enforcement and military action.

One example of this erosion of civil liberties is the use of “Roving Wiretaps” under the USA PATRIOT Act. These wiretaps allow government agencies to monitor a suspect’s communications across multiple devices without obtaining a new warrant each time the suspect switches phones or locations. This appears to violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Constitution requires that warrants be specific about the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Roving wiretaps lack this specificity and allow for broad, undefined surveillance. Additionally, such surveillance raises Fifth Amendment due process concerns, as individuals may be monitored without knowing it and therefore cannot challenge the surveillance in court.

Another controversial provision of the Patriot Act is the use of “Sneak and Peek” warrants, also known as delayed-notification searches. These allow law enforcement to enter a person’s property and conduct a search without immediately notifying them. Notification may be delayed for weeks or even months. This also undermines the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches, as individuals are typically supposed to be informed of a search so they can contest its legality. Without timely notification, judicial oversight is weakened, and individuals lose the ability to hold the government accountable for potentially unlawful searches. Moreover, although initially intended for terrorism investigations, “Sneak and Peek” warrants have been widely used in non-terrorism cases, such as drug offenses, raising concerns about the broad expansion of government surveillance powers.

Together, these developments reflect a major shift in how the U.S. government balances national security and individual rights. As Williams emphasizes, the War on Terror has created a legal and moral gray zone,where fear and emergency are used to justify actions that would normally be considered unconstitutional. The result is a redefinition of liberty and privacy in ways that may have long-term consequences for American democracy.

I decided to write this in an essay format because the question were all related, hope this is ok professor.

The Establishment Clause prohibits congress and states from creating or promoting a state-sponsored religion. However, the nuances of the cross religion/state relationship, especially due to the influence of 19^th/20^th century immigration influence in the US religious sphere; exacerbated by complicated new developments such as creating a public school system in turn required more definitive court directives. The ‘Lemon test’ was established by the supreme court in 1971 to more effectively categorize what actions or laws do not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. It outlined three criteria pertaining to not allowing for ‘excessive’ government entanglement with religion, law or action not advancing or inhibiting religious practice and any law or action must have some secular purpose. 

The burning of the United States flag is protected under the first amendment as codified by the US supreme court ruling of the 1989 Texas Vs. Johnson case. Gregory Lee Johnson set fire to a US flag as part of a protest movement and was arrested and charged with ‘desecration of a venerated object’ however the supreme court ruled that such an act was a form of symbolic speech and therefore prosecution for an individual that carried out a flag burning was unconstitutional. 

When someone says they’re ‘taking the fifth’ they mean they are invoking their right under the fifth amendment to protect themselves again self-incrimination. 

The court system, particularly the federal judiciary, is often better suited to protect individual rights because it is designed to be insulated from the political pressures that influence the elected branches. Unlike Congress or the President, judges are not beholden to voters, donors, or political parties in the same way. This allows them to make decisions based on constitutional principles, legal precedents, and the protection of minority rights—even when those decisions are unpopular. A clear example is the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). At the time, many elected officials—especially in Southern states—supported or tolerated racial segregation because it was politically popular with their constituents. Congress was slow to act decisively against segregation. But the Court stepped in and ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, thus protecting the rights of African American children despite strong opposition from the majority in some regions. This demonstrates how the courts can defend individual and minority rights when the political branches fail to do so.

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.)Yes, in a literal sense, the Supreme Court is anti-democratic because its justices are not elected by the people and serve lifetime terms. This can make the institution appear unaccountable and disconnected from public opinion. However, this anti-democratic design is intentional and was meant to serve a specific function within the U.S. constitutional system. The Founders, especially James Madison in Federalist #10, feared what they called the “tyranny of the majority”—the idea that a majority group could use its political power to oppress minorities or undermine long-term interests for short-term popularity. To counteract this, they built in checks like the judiciary, which could act as a stabilizing force and protector of constitutional rights, even if that meant going against the will of the majority. Since judges are appointed and not elected, they can focus on interpreting the law without the pressure of campaigning or pleasing voters. This independence is crucial for protecting unpopular decisions that uphold fundamental rights (e.g., LGBTQ+ rights, freedom of speech, rights of the accused) that might otherwise be overridden by majoritarian politics. At the same time, this system also reflects the influence of elite control. The appointment process—where the President nominates and the Senate confirms—means that political and social elites continue to play a dominant role in shaping the judiciary. In this way, the system mirrors the Founders’ original design, which gave significant power to property-owning, educated elites to steer governance.