Whiteness and racism are connected because one originated due to the other. For example colonization which was started by white people lead to the creation of racism and the discussion of civilized vs uncivilized. Even though i partially agree with Gilmores statement about white disappearance I overall think they give white people too much credit. I argue this issue is deeper than whiteness and racism, this issue comes from sin. I say this because most systems of society are built off of pride and the idea of superiority. For example each country has their own propaganda, and argues their country is better than the next. Racism and whiteness are tools that are maintained by the sinful natures of all people and in turn are embedded within society.

Gilmore argues that criminals are created by the justice system, and this happens due to longer sentences and expanding what crimes are considered to be. Basically making changes that results in more people being categorized as criminals. I agree with this because during the jim crow era, there were laws put in place simply to imprison black people called ‘Black codes’. Making homelessness and being unemployed illegal. Not only this but prisoners are referred to slaves of the state, its not by chance that after 1865 there was a dramatic increase of prisoners across the country. In short Gilmores argument cant really be refuted, these systems were designed to control and exploit people of color.

Gilmore argues that liberation struggle is a effort that is place based, and addresses the challenges of people in a specific place. And Gilmore states that when you interact with a certain struggle it helps you understand, and considers this a path to consciousness. What i take from this is that liberation struggle isnt just about protesting, but people working together to challenge oppressive systems. Liberation struggle shows that change occurs when you facilitate that change, not just sitting around and tweeting about it

The establishment clause was created to protect the freedom to practice ones religion, and keep the government from imposing on ones religious beliefs. The lemon test came from the Lemon v. Kurtzman(1971) court case, this 3 part test was used to determine if a law was constitutional, and if the law mixed religion with government too much. The test was used to keep and maintain the separation of religion and the government. I find it interesting that the supreme court doesnt use the test anymore. This shows that the governments views on religion and state has changed over time.

Burning the U.S flag is protected by the 1st amendment. In the case Texas v. Johnson, the supreme court stated that burning the flag is protected by the 1st amendment. Flag burning is a form of symbolic speech and even if its seems offensive to some its not a illegal.

When someone says their ‘taking the fifth’ means they opt out of speech during trial. Or using their right to not say anything that could be used against them in court. This is apart of the 5th amendment, where people are protected from testifying against themselves.

Jaydeen Machado

American Government

9.1

1.    Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”. Establishment clause prohibited congress from creating and promoting state sponsored religion favoring one or non. Most countries have Church religion values beliefs in between the states there are divisions, and with certain divisions, come restrictions within certain religious groups in certain countries and states to the restrictions of certain states with Jews. Similar to what Thomas Jefferson describes a wall of separation between states and church, so this is why the forbidden creation of a church for the US forbids government from favoring one religion beliefs over another church or certain religious group. this is how lemon test relates to establishment cause because the test decides whether a law or government action promotes a specific religious practice, and if it is allowed to stand. So, there are three certain criteria standards as you can say that needs to be satisfied. one of them is action and law must not lead to excessive entanglement with religion, so there should be straightforward and not require extensive effort by the government. The second test is if the law cannot inhibit or advance a certain religion, and lastly, the final test is action or law must have no villages or spiritual, but basis, they must have secular purpose non-religious justification for each law. This is how we keep our school system different respecting every religion and supporting.

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

Yes, burning the flag is protected speech under the first amendment a form of symbolic expression or a political expression. Trying to convey a message protecting the expression even if its offensive to others just because society may find the idea offensive asked on standards. Like Near v Minnesota about press freedoms, federal government could not engage in stopping someone from publishing something without a compelling reason. Not being ale to deny certain businesses like the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers even the pentagon papers. As for courts they recognized government officials and public figures may silence certain press to avoid backlash but serving lawsuits for defamation of character. The freedom of expression is not absolute there are restrictions in place to limit certain abilities. You can possibly find loopholes.

3.    What does it mean when someone says, “I’m taking the Fifth”?

When someone say I’m taking the fifth” it means protection against self incriminating or the right to remain silent. Your right not to give evidence in court, to law enforcement in an interrogation that might produce an admission of guilt or responsibility for a crime. In a criminal trial if someone doe does not testify in his or her own defense, prosecutors can not use that failure to testify as evidence of guilt or imply an innocent person would testify. In the Supreme Courts 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona suspect through high suspect are to be informed of the most important right. The right to self incriminates before being in police custody. In a situation where you are free to leave, consider law enforcement does not have to inform you of the rights before question know as Miranda Warning.

1. The “Lemon test” is essentially a smell test for how much something doesn’t smell right with regard to the “Establishment Clause”. There are a few positions and how the “Lemon test” relates to the clause.
   • The first being that all laws “must not lead to excessive entanglement with religion”. Meaning that no laws can so closely follow a religion that it can in anyway be confused for it.
   • The next one supports the previous in that policing “the boundary between government and religion” should be easily understood by the average citizen.
   • Lastly, that no law should
2. Yes, the burning of the U.S. flag is protected under the First Amendment and seen as a form of symbolic speech, as stated in the text. In 1989, Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of burning a U.S. flag. Though five years later, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that conviction and deemed it unconstitutional. They stated that the act of burning the flag was protected under the First Amendment. To this day, Congress will routinely attempt to pass laws regarding the protection of the U.S. flag, and every time the Supreme Court strikes it down.
3. When someone says “I’m taking the Fifth,” they mean that they will not make themselves available to self-incrimination through their own words. They plan to stay silent and let the burden of proof of guilt fall on the police or the prosecuting attorney.

As a concerned citizen, I’m always thinking about how much say we really have in our government. In a unitary system, power’s all at the top—citizens mostly vote for and deal with the national leaders; local folks just carry out orders. Federal systems, like ours, split power: we engage at national, state, and local levels, voting on everything from schools to taxes, giving us more direct input. Confederations flip it—states run the show, so citizens focus there; the national group’s weak and needs state okay for big moves.

I see division of power as a safeguard: it spreads authority between branches (like president, congress, courts) and levels (federal vs. states) to prevent anyone hogging control, with checks to keep things fair.

During COVID, the federal government shaped New York’s actions through billions in CARES Act funding tied to testing, masks, and lockdowns, plus FEMA aid for NYC’s tracing and hospitals. It enabled quick response but showed feds steering states with money.

A faction is a group of people united by shared interests or emotions that might harm others or the community, like rich landowners or upset workers pushing their own goals. To control factions, there are two methods: removing their causes or managing their effects. Removing causes means either taking away freedom, which allows factions to form, or making everyone think the same, but both are flawed. Taking away liberty hurts everyone, and forcing the same opinions is impossible. Instead, controlling effects through a republic, where elected leaders balance interests, works better. The word “faculties” refers to people’s natural abilities, like skills in business or farming, which lead to different wealth levels and create factions. A pure democracy has everyone voting directly on laws and works in small places, while a republic has elected leaders making decisions and can handle larger areas and more people.

1. The statistic on wealth inequality in the US that made the biggest impression on me was 90% of American families have little or no net assets. This stood out to me because the majority of society cannot afford the things the top 1% can afford. The majority of american families must work in order to survive and that is all they can do, survive. They cannot invest in stocks or buy land and assets because they only have enough to sustain their means of subsistence. The top 1% contains a lot of people who were born into generational wealth and do not have to work for their money. Due to the majority of the US not coming from wealthy families, most people will accept being paid less than the value of their labor. Workers are not paid fairly which is why the poor will remain poor no matter how hard they work.
2. This was definitely an eye opener to see how inequality in the US will most likely become worse instead of getting better. The cycle will continue where the workers are under-paid and the capitalists continue to increase their wealth. In the world we live in, inflation is a big issue. Inflation has increased the price of food, housing and transportation. It has also impacted businesses where people became unemployed from budget cuts and layoffs. How can the working class and poor ever be equal to the wealthy, when the Top 1% has been designed to remain wealthy even among the struggling conditions of society since birth?

The way social class is discussed in reading 4.1 and 4.2 both reference household income as a major factor in classifying an individual’s objective social class. They also both reference location as a factor, as reading 4.1 describes how rural areas are less likely to have individuals identifying as upper class and reading 4.2 presents a diagram that discerns the average income levels around any given stop on NYC’s subway system. The main difference between the two readings’ discussion of social class is 4.2’s mention of subjective social class. Subjective social class is defined as how an individual identifies themselves within any given social class.

I am assuming we aren’t doing the next segment of the discussion board due to the website being down, but I think my neighborhood wouldn’t show up on the website because I live in Stapleton, Staten Island. However, if it were on there, I imagine it would not be super accurate because there is a lot of wealth disparity in my neighborhood due to the active gentrification going on. When I first moved here this was not the case, but these past few years there have been sheik McMansions with luxury cars in the driveways popping up between old, multi-family homes occupied by working class people. I believe the majority of people living here have a lower income, but the outliers may boost the average number up a bit.

Generally, it seems like the further you move away from downtown Manhattan and Brooklyn the lower the household income would be. This makes sense, as the most desirable apartments and homes will be closer to where the best jobs are. The shorter the commute to the center of NYC is, the more you’ll have to pay.

According to Michael Parenti, owners in a society refer to individuals who live primarily off of investments, property income or other peoples’ labor. An employee is somebody who works for the owning class that lives off of wages and salaries. For example, an owner could be the executive chair of a massive company like Amazon or the person in charge of running a local, family-run coffee shop. An example of an employee could be the CEO of Amazon or simply a barista.

Adam Smith believes that labor is by far the most valuable commodity within society. Labor gives any good or service its true value, and money/capital is just a way to quantify and compare that value.

Personally, I 100% agree that class shouldn’t be lumped together with identity politics. While there are a lot of similarities between subjective class and identity, I believe the working class encompasses such a large demographic of people that it is impossible to quantify it to something as specific as being a part of your personal identity, like your race or sexuality. Also, I agree that if every American were to recognize our value as the working-class and we were to somehow solve the current wealth disparity issue, tackling the other forms of oppression within our society will be much easier. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but I feel certain that the most powerful people in our society instils hatred and miseducation within the general population to distract us from the real problem; wealth disparity between the average American and the top 1%. However, I do think that somebody’s identity is greatly influenced by their subjective social class. For example, the conservative party in this country runs on the pride people have for being a middle-class American.

The dependency referred to by Paul Heidemen is the relationship between the two classes in capitalist society; the working class and the capitalist class. The ultimate goal of a capitalist is to constantly expand to generate more profit for its shareholders. The only way to do this is to exploit the labor of the working class to increase productivity. The ultimate goal of a laborer is to make enough wages to sustain their own life by convincing a capitalist that they can make them money by being productive. Both laborers and capitalists need each other to keep the capitalist system in order. Ultimately, this means that whatever is good for the capitalists interests is bad for the workers interests, and vice versa. For example, capitalists need cheap labor in order to maximize profits. So in response, giant tech conglomerates and even fast food chains are investing hundreds of billions of dollars into AI technology intended to replace entire workforces for a lump sum that will pay itself off in a matter of quarters. To train this technology, these massive companies need laborers to train their AI by prompting the AI with massive amounts of training data. This job is generally entry-level and benefits both the laborer with a solid wage in a struggling economy and the capitalist by creating an extremely cheap alternative to human labor.