1. Ruth Gilmore says that capitalism will stop being racial capitalism, when all the white people disappear from the story. What’s the connection between “whiteness” and racism, do you think? She says this because racism was used to divide people back then. She says in the modern day this is used as a way to leverage one group over the other. When she mentions whiteness and racism its because she mentions white people being the top of a hierarchy almost that keep them at the top. SHe calls it racial capitalism because of all these dependent factors.

2.Gilmore makes the point that criminals are actually being created by the criminal justice and prison system (she says “the category of ‘criminal person’ can be perpetuated”). According to Gilmore, how does that happen, how does the prison system create new “criminals“? Do you agree with her view? It happens stated by Gilmore because once someone is labeled a criminal it becomes harder for them to rehabilitate into society. Its harder for someone to get a job, education, housing, services, and etc. She says the label criminal hasnt been used to what it was promised meaning rehabilitation inside prisons haven’t been helpful and instead hurting the label more. Her view to me makes sense because criminals obviously go to jail/ prison where they get rehabilitated but in today’s world that lost its meaning of it, people come out worse than they came back in which makes sense to me.

3. Describe how your understand what Prof. Gilmore – in the last part of her video – calls “liberation struggle”? Gilmore says that means people working together to create a fairer society without racism and mass incarceration. She believes communities should focus on helping people through support, education, and opportunities instead of punishment alone.

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. Court systems have become better to protect individuals than elected branches of government because of neutrality and not what others expect/ want from you. Court systems are designed to have neutrality despite the overview given to the judge. Elected officials do the opposite and tend to follow a trend usually like what we’ve seen with immigration or even inflation. An example is supreme courts can rule things unconstitutionally let’s say the 4th amendment for example which protects the individuals’ rights by majority.

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.)

I kinda agree with the anti-democratic system in federal court systems because of the serving for life rule. This is because people appointed will cherish their values overtime while a new day and age comes to rule over time and time again with constant repetition. They don’t run for re-election since they’ve been appointed. Federalist 10 warns people about tyrants so this kind of ties in here because the main point of appointing people is to make fair decisions. Creating somewhat of a balance in decision makings and also appointing since it’s not done by us, the people.

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? War on terror is new because it’s a war where it talks about anyone being the enemy. This is different from traditional wars since you usually have an enemy and even considering the fact that where its taken place. War of terror creates a new psychological warfare that’s the same but kind of different given context, since there’s confusion, anger, fear that leads to crazy actions. This causes anyone to be faced as the enemy with actions taken against them no matter what.
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 violates the bill of rights because it violates said rights. The roving wiretaps allow the FBI to tap devices of someone if correlation or suspicion of terrorism is present. They can tap anything on it of whatever device of someone causing this to violate the 4th amendment which is the right that protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures which are authorized through warrants. It violates this now because roving wiretaps don’t specify what device is looked into, causing the outrage.
3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants? “Allows “Sneak and peek” search warrants, which let authorities search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of a probe.” Meaning, they can enter somewhere of your property and search for an item without notifying you. This is to look for evidence without raising suspicion which would again state earlier, seems to violate the 4th amendment.

1. Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”. Establishment clause and the Lemon test are very relatable because the establishment clause talks about prohibiting congress from establishing an official religion for the country to follow and instead allowing religions to live as is without preferring one over the other. This relates to the Lemon Test since this test was during the cause Lemon v. Kurtzman which mentioned government law and actions not relating to religion. This is because the first amendment prohibits this since it mentions freedom of religion and not restrict what is practiced. It states, “1. The action or law must not lead to excessive government entanglement with religion; in other words, policing the boundary between government and religion should be relatively straightforward and not require extensive effort by the government.
   2. The action or law cannot either inhibit or advance religious practice; it should be neutral in its effects on religion.
   3. The action or law must have some secular purpose; there must be some non-religious justification for the law.” They both play fundamental roles since Lemon paved a new way to stop the favoriting of one religion over the other by stopping the funding for religious schools versus public school.
2. Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading. Burning the flag is protected by the first amendment because the court cause in Houston 1989 stated in Texas. Johnson, “that burning the flag was a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment and found the law, as applied to flag desecration, to be unconstitutional.” Basically allowing the burning of the American Flag to be protected by the first amendment as a form of protest.
3. What does it mean when someone says, “I’m taking the Fifth”? when someone says I’m taking the fifth it means to not self-incriminate. This is due to the fact the fifth amendment allows you to stay silent since if said answer you say is self-incriminating or evidence, by law it will be used against you, known as the Miranda Rights. It’s important to note that i n a court as well, jury cannot use this way of you not complying if questioned as a way of you to be found guilty.