1.I believe that ‘white sexuality’ is not just about skin color, but a status that is considered normal and holds more power and privilege in society. Gilmore believes that racial capitalism utilizes racial differences to maintain economic and social inequality, thus white sexuality is often associated with power and advantage. The reason why racism can persist is that certain groups have long gained more resources and opportunities within the system, while other ethnic groups are marginalized.

2.Gilmore believes that criminal justice and prison systems are not just about punishing crime, but may constantly create new ‘criminals’. When people enter prison, they may find it more difficult to reintegrate into society due to a lack of education, job opportunities, and social support. In addition, individuals with a criminal record are prone to discrimination, leading to increased risks of unemployment, poverty, and recidivism. Therefore, the identity of “criminal” will be continuously strengthened by the system.
I partially agree with her view, because if society does not provide enough help and opportunities for change, prisons may really make it harder for some people to break free from the cycle of crime.

3.I think Gilmore’s “liberation struggle” refers to people working together to change unfair systems and pursue true equality and freedom. This is not just about opposing racial discrimination or prison systems, but about building a society that values human rights, education, healthcare, and social support more. She emphasized the importance of community cooperation and collective action, hoping to reduce oppression and inequality by changing the system.

1. The Supreme Court did not allow the gender discrimination case become a class action- lawsuit. This means that many of female employees could not sue Wakmart together as one large group. The Court found out that the female employees lacked commonality among them. Beucase of there was not enought commonailty among the plaintiffs, the court did not allow the case to proceed as a class-action lawsuit.

1. Compared with elected institutions, the court system is generally more suitable for protecting individual rights because judges are not elected, and thus are less influenced by public opinion, political pressure, or the need for re-election. Members of Congress, presidents, and mayors must be accountable to the electorate, which sometimes leads them to prioritize the interests of the majority over those of minority groups or individual rights.
On the other hand, federal judges hold lifetime positions, which grants them independence. This enables them to make rulings based on constitutional and legal principles rather than political support. Therefore, the courts can serve as a safeguard against laws or actions that infringe upon individual rights.
A clear example is the Brown v. Board of Education case (1954), in which the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. At that time, racial segregation was supported by many voters and elected officials in certain states. If this issue had been left entirely to elected institutions to handle, the change might have taken much longer. The court intervened to protect individual rights, even if it contradicted the majority opinion.

2. Regarding whether the Supreme Court is “anti-democratic”, it may seem so at first glance, as judges are not elected by the people. However, this design was not accidental. According to the discussion in Article 10 of “The Federalist Papers”, the founding fathers were concerned that “factions” (groups driven by their own interests) would dominate the government. By exempting judges from elections, this system ensures that certain departments of the government can uphold long-term constitutional principles rather than short-term public opinion demands.
In this sense, the courts are not anti-democratic; rather, they are a necessary balancing force within the democratic system, ensuring that individual rights can be protected even in situations that are unpopular.

1. The court system follows procedures that are designed to protect individuals. When someone is suspected of a crime, they must have their Miranda rights explained to them by the U.S. police. These rights allow the suspect to remain silent and have an attorney present during custodial interrogations. The purpose is to prevent police coercion and protect the suspects fifth amendment rights.

2. I agree with this opinion. The reason for this way of choosing judges in federal courts is for people in power to appoint individuals with their best interests in mind, directly resulting in lobbying and affecting outcomes of cases in the supreme court.

1.According to P. Williams, the war on terrorism is different from traditional wars because it does not take place between countries that have clear armies or borders. Instead, its target is terrorist organizations that are scattered across different countries and do not represent any single country. Its novelty lies in,The enemy is a non-state actor (a terrorist organization, rather than a government).There is no clear battlefield or front line. The war may last for a very long time and there will be no definite end date. It usually involves intelligence, surveillance and counter-terrorism, rather than traditional warfare.

2. According to the USA PATRIOT Act, “wireless eavesdropping” allows law enforcement agencies to monitor communications of individuals on multiple devices without specifying the listening devices.This seems to violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Because the Fourth Amendment requires the possession of a specific search warrant, while the limitation of mobile wiretapping is relatively weak, allowing for more extensive surveillance. This could lead to privacy violations, including the collection of information from people not related to this matter. Therefore, critics argue that this weakens the protection against the excessive expansion of government power.

3. The “secret search warrant” also originated from the “Patriot Act”. It allows law enforcement agencies to search a person’s property without immediately notifying the individual. This has raised concerns about the Fourth Amendment. As a rule, people are informed of a search when it occurs, but these search warrants are issued with a delayed notification, which means the individual may not be aware that their rights are being affected. This reduces transparency and makes it more difficult to question the search. In summary, critics argue that such search warrants would undermine privacy rights and due process.

1. The “separation of church and state” clause is part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which stipulates that the government shall not establish a state religion or favor any religion. In short, it upholds the separation of church and state. The Lemon test originated from the Supreme Court case “Lemon v. Kurtzman”. This test is used to determine whether a law violates the “separation of church and state” clause. A law must meet three conditions: its purpose must be secular (non-religious); its primary effect must neither promote nor inhibit religion; and it must not result in excessive government entanglement with religion.

2. Yes, burning the American flag is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution and is considered symbolic speech. According to the Supreme Court case “Texas v. Johnson”, the court ruled that burning the flag is a way to express political views. Even though many people find this behavior offensive, the government cannot punish someone just because they express their opinions. The article explains that although laws once tried to protect the flag from desecration, the courts ultimately ruled that freedom of speech is more important, even if the content is controversial.

3. When someone says “I invoke my Fifth Amendment rights”, they are exercising the rights granted to them by the Fifth Amendment. This means they choose not to answer questions because their answers might incriminate them (get them into trouble). The Constitution protects people from being forced to incriminate themselves.

1. P. Williams believes that the war on terror is a completely new form of warfare because it is fundamentally different from the traditional conflict patterns between nations. Traditional wars occur between clearly defined nations. However, the target of the war on terror is non-state actors – specifically, terrorist organizations. This war has no clear battlefield: there is no distinct front line; instead, it unfolds globally, crossing borders, cities, and even cyberspace. The timeline is also uncertain: traditional wars typically have clear starting and ending points (such as treaties or surrenders); in contrast, the war on terror has no definite end date. The integration of war and law enforcement: it combines military actions with intelligence collection, surveillance, and law enforcement activities. Active strategy: it usually takes action before an attack occurs, rather than responding after the attack.
In summary, compared to traditional wars, the organizational form of the war on terror is more decentralized, lasts longer, and has more blurred boundaries.
2. “Active monitoring” allows law enforcement agencies to monitor an individual’s communication activities on multiple devices without specifying the specific equipment. Main problem: the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires a specific search warrant – such as a detailed description of the specific items, contents, or locations to be searched. The active monitoring method is widely criticized for its lack of clarity, which may lead to the interception of data on devices not directly associated with the suspect. Possible reasons for violating the Fourth Amendment: it may involve monitoring innocent civilians. The wide scope of this power increases the risk of government overreach. Possible reasons for violating the First Amendment: if an individual believes they are being monitored, they may be unwilling to freely express their opinions thus causing “repression” of speech and communication.
3. Entrapment authorization orders (also known as delayed notification authorization orders) allow law enforcement agencies： to enter a residence without immediately notifying the owner. To conduct a search without prior notification to the resident that their residence has been searched. The Fourth Amendment stipulates： searches usually require prior notification. Delayed notification violates the principles of transparency and accountability. Individuals cannot immediately challenge or oppose the search. Because the search is conducted without the knowledge of the relevant parties， the risk of abuse of power significantly increases. The government’s argument is as follows： in cases of terrorist activities or serious crimes， immediate notification may lead to： the suspect being frightened； evidence may be destroyed. Overall， critics believe that such searches undermine constitutional protection， while supporters insist that such searches are necessary to address modern security threats.

1. The separation of church and state clause (part of the First Amendment) stipulates that the government shall not establish an official religion or favor any particular religion. It also prohibits the government from promoting any religion in any way.
   The Lemon Test originated from the Supreme Court’s “Lemon v. Kurtzman case” and is used to determine whether a law violates the separation of church and state provisions. It consists of three elements: The law must have a secular (non-religious) purpose; Its main effect should neither promote nor suppress religion. Must not lead to excessive government intervention in religion;
   If a law fails to meet any of the above requirements, it will be regarded as unconstitutional.
   2. Yes, burning the American flag is protected by the First Amendment because it is a symbolic form of speech (expressing thoughts through action). This ruling originated from the “Texas v. Johnson” case of the Supreme Court. The court ruled that although many people find the act of burning the flag offensive, the government cannot punish individuals for expressing political opinions.
   3. “I invoke the Fifth Amendment” refers to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which grants citizens the right to avoid self-incrimination. This means that if a person’s answer might be used as unfavorable evidence against them in a criminal case, then they can refuse to answer the questions.

1. In federal, confederate, and unitary states, the roles of citizens differ significantly due to the different power structures: federal citizens have a “dual identity,” participating in both local and central decision-making; unitary citizens are directly accountable to the central government, with limited local autonomy; and confederate citizens are accountable only to their own constituent states, with the central government having virtually no power.
2. The separation of powers is a constitutional system aimed at preventing the abuse of state power. The core principle is to divide state power into three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial, each controlled by different institutions. These three departments have equal status, balance each other, and safeguard the freedom and rights of the people.
3. The federal government can influence the operations of state and local governments by providing funds, setting national guidelines, and offering assistance in emergencies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government had a significant impact on New York State and its local governments’ response measures. For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued health recommendations regarding mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. New York State referred to these guidelines to formulate its own rules and policies. The federal government also passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), providing funds to states and cities to assist hospitals, businesses, and the unemployed. Additionally, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided medical supplies and support during the crisis. In summary, the federal government influenced New York State’s decision-making during the pandemic by offering guidance, resources, and financial assistance.