In the Wal-Mart Vs. Dukes(2011) the Supreme court ruled that the case could not proceed as a class action lawsuit. The Supreme court argued that the case failed to meet the legal requirement of commonality. Which is that everyone in the class has to share one common issue that can be solved by the ruling. And the courts stated that since Wal-Mart didnt have one clear discriminatory rule, managers made their own choices about pay. And in result of this each situation could be different depending on the manager, and that the case was too spread out to be ruled as a class action lawsuit. Meaning that the women could not be seen as one group because of the lack of commonality. I argue that the Supreme court proved again that it is a court to justify the corruption of the elite. This ruling makes it easier for the wealthy to avoid accountability by decentralizing discrimination.

The supreme court protects individuals better than other branches of the government because, judges aren’t influenced by the public. Judges who get appointed judge based on the law and the constitution not on the opinions or political opinions. For example in Brown v. The board of education, the courts ruled in favor of brown, even though the ruling went against most of the public opinion. At the same time i think that some judges take their oaths seriously, and others are influenced by the wealthy elite. For example, the president nominates the judges, and 9 times out of 10 the judges share the same political views. So even if the judge isnt bribed, there still is a political bias. This stems from how the government was originally set up by the wealthy elite. Who designed the government in a way they could have all the power, and protect their assets from the poor.

I do believe that the supreme court is anti-democratic because all parts of the government are corrupt in the opinion. And this is corruption runs to the core because the function of the government was built on deceit and control of the poor. The system was designed to look fair, and a actual representation of the people. But in truth has only served the interests of the wealthy elite. For example judges on the supreme court have to get appointed by the resident. And its not a surprise that the judge appointed have the same political views of the government. And then these judges serve for life, which gives them influence with little to no accountability. And in turn makes it easier for political agendas and the elite to shape court decisions. Also federalist Alexander Hamilton argued the judiciary branch would be considered the least dangerous branch. Some believe that Hamilton stated this because it had no control over money or military. I believe it could be the most dangerous branch because its the branch with the least amount of accountability, and decisions made by this branch can affect generations, with a slight chance of the pubic to be able to challenge these decisions. I find it ironic that the government tried to separate itself from British rule in the name of ‘freedom’. But just rebranded itself as a bootleg version of the same system it rebelled against. The power rests with the elite, not the people, and reinforce the control while convincing the people they live in a free society.

Williams describes the war on terror a new type of war, because its an unseen enemy with no battlefield. She argues that wars used to be fought between nations and then treaties are made. But currently its more security alerts than action occurring. Williams argues that tehe use of emergency powers by the government increases the control over people. For example the patriot act, gave federal agencies the access to phone calls, emails etc to prevent terrorism. I argue that the government uses the fear that people have as an opportunity of control and surveillance. Simply because the government was collecting information on regular people, without warrants. This data did not come out until 2013, 9/11 happened in 2001. This is clearly an invasion of privacy but its ‘ok’ because a ‘terrorist attack’ happened. Fear allows expanded control of the government which limits the freedom of the people.

The roving wiretaps violates the bill of rights because it is a violation of the peoples privacy. These wiretaps allow the government to monitor calls, and emails of regular citizens. This is all done without a warrant which violates the fourth amendment of unreasonable searches. This goes back to Williams argument about war on terror. The government uses this fear of an ‘enemy’ so that they have more control over the general population

Sneak and peak warrants were under the patriot act to prevent evidence being destroyed, specifically for terrorism. This allows the government to come into your home and search, without your knowledge. Which directly violates the fourth amendment which protects us from unreasonable searches. As well as the fifth amendment, which protects our right to due process. These warrants rarely affect the white community, most people targeted for warrants were minorities. This was not the first instance of the government infringing on the rights of minorities. Stop and frisk was introduced in the 1960s, and that meant that cops could assume whatever they wanted about you, and that resulted in people being searched. Its not a shocker which community faced the most issues with this policy. Stop and frisk wasnt seen as unconstitutional up until 2013, when a judge ruled that the policy violated the fourth and fourteenth amendment. Both policies show how the government uses fear to infringe on the rights of people, and most times thats people of color.

In a federal system, citizens participate in government both locally, and federally, meaning there’s more opportunities to influence decisions that affect communities and the nation. This system is labeled as a democracy. In a confederation system, citizens mostly engage with their state governments, the central government is weak and depends on the states. This is what anti-federalists pushed for. In a unitary system, citizens mostly interact with the central government, since most authority is concentrated at the national level. Local governments exist but only have powers granted to them by the central government.

The division of power refers to how authority is shared among levels of government and the people. While federalism was meant to balance power between state and national governments, it has not always ensured equal access to political influence for everyone. Truthfully, Black Americans and other minority groups have been excluded from full participation in government through laws, voting restrictions, and systemic discrimination. Even though The Constitution divides power among branches and levels of government to prevent tyranny, that same system often allowed states to limit the rights of minorities, especially in areas such as voting and representation. While interventions through constitutional amendments, civil rights laws, and Supreme Court rulings helped challenge unequal systems of power. However disparities remain showing that the division of power is not only about government structure but also about whose voice truly matters

The federal government shapes the actions of state and local governments through funding, mandates, and policy guidance. During the pandemic, the federal government influenced New York State and local governments through the CARES Act and other relief packages to help New York respond to the public health crisis. The CDC issued nationwide guidelines for the crisis, which shaped New York’s own policies. These actions show how the federal government can shape and support state and local responses during emergencies, while still allowing states to adapt policies to their specific circumstances.

Factions remind me of the division of the poor and the wealthy, an the establishment of social classes that widen the gap of inequality and exclusion in society

Madison argues that people are basically born with the abilities to make them rich or poor, he states “the diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests”. This means that people have certain abilities and that leads to them to become wealthy, which is why economic inequality exists. I don’t agree with this thinking because the cards that people have been dealt are unfair and its more than ability. According to Maslow hierarchy of needs a person needs basic survival needs like food and shelter, but we also need love, esteem and self actualization. Meaning that a person needs more than just a place to stay and something to eat to e successful. They need to be connected with other people, have to be able to express heir creativity, and a need for financial security. Which most of the working class doesn’t have access to, disproving Madison’s theory of everyone cards being dealt and that being fair.

The Core mission of the government is to protect the property of the wealthy. Madison argues “the protection of these faculties which produce property is the first objective of the government.” Which is not surprising seeing as the makers of the constitution didn’t want poor people to vote, because it would disrupt their wealth.

No i’m not surprised because most of the founding fathers were selfish wealthy white men who only cared about keeping their riches and protecting their property. Madison wasn’t in favor of true democracy because it would prove himself to be classist, discriminatory and plain evil. Besides that, he didnt want the poor to get access to his wealth as well as many other wealthy white men at he time

Capitalists/wealthy white men wrote the constitution, and purposefully wrote laws to keep themselves powerful, and the poor weak and uneducated. Only white property owners could vote, black people still enslaved and considered 3/5 of a person definitely couldn’t vote, women couldn’t vote. Anyone who did not fit the rich white man standard was not able to vote. For example Michael Parenti argued “In twelve of the thirteen states (Pennsylvania excepted), only property owning White males could vote, probably not more than 10 percent of the total adult population. Excluded were all Native Americans (“Indians”), persons of African descent, women, indentured servants, and White males lacking sufficient property. This except just proves that this government was built on hate and exclusion, making it harder for regular people to be represented within the government . Many messed up parts of the constitution is still around to this day which is why the rich continue to get richer and the poor poorer.

I would say that the class structures are slightly different because of the rise of the middle class, and people now having more opportunities for work and owning their own business. However the elite still controls the government, wanting the working class to stay idle and not jeopardize their money. Society has evolved just not over the corruption of the government

The elite were afraid of losing their wealth, and being considered better than their counterparts because of the money the had. The elite wanted to keep the control of society because the working class was seen as uneducated, and did not know how to run a government.

The statistic of the united states level of inequality being the higher than any other industrialized nation stood out to me but wasnt shocking. This is because of how the system was made up, most founding fathers were wealthy and wanted to protect their ‘property’ from the government. Basically they didn’t want to be taxed heavily. But they also did not want the lower class to rebel so they limited democracy in order to protect their wealth and themselves for rebellions, one most notable rebellion was Shays rebellion. In order to protect their wealth they had to limit voting rights, and through the Constitution and amendments they made it harder for regular people to make changes within society.

Basically the majority of people struggle while the elite gets richer and probably laugh at us because we allow these things to happen. I see this daily with rent, people are struggling to make ends meet, prices of everything is going up. The cost of living is raising but not the minimum wage. People are pushed out of their homes while landlords and property owners count the franklins.