- The difference between just and unjust laws are their foundation of morals behind which they are created. A just law is a law created in the alignment of respectable morals and uplifts human dignity. Unjust laws are the opposite, these laws are degraded and align with no morals. In his letter, Dr. King explains unjust laws as being laws that are created without the input or opinion of those the law will affect. An example of unjust laws would be Jim Crow Laws. They promote inequality against Black Americans. Dr. King believed that it was up to the people to peacefully disobey these unjust laws to uphold a higher standard of justice.
- There is an important distinction between just and unjust laws, and its important to understand this distinction in order to properly perform in society as a whole. When people understand and recognize when a law is unjust they feel obligated to go against these laws to spark a change. This will also affect our politics by influencing the public opinion and how political leaders are viewed. In conclusion, this distinction makes sure than laws serve the public not just legally but ethically.
- An example of an unjust law in the Unites States today would be the voter ID laws. This law directly impacts low income Americans and people of color. Dr. Kings defines unjust laws as laws that create a barrier for certain citizens and this law creates unequal access to voting for citizens. It degrades citizens and strips them of their basic democratic right.
- The court system is better suited to protect the individual than the elected branches of government in a number of ways. The judicial branch focuses more on legal principles and not political gain in ways the other branches do. Elective officials tend to prioritize their political goals and pass laws that limit civil liberties. Also elective officials must tend to the opinion of the majority to stay in office unlike the judicial branch, causing them to overlook individual rights. For example in the Brown v The Board of Education trial the U.S. The Supreme Court ruled segregation in schools to be unconstitutional while elected officials catered to the opinions of the majority of white voters especially in the south that schools should not integrate.
- I agree with the statement that the Supreme Court is anti-democratic. The point of a democracy is for the civilians to have a vote on who is representing them, but Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the president with no say from the citizens of America. However, as discussed in the Federalist #10 this was put in place to protect minorities rights and avoid the dangers of “majority rules.”
- The Supreme Court decided that in Wal-Mart v Dukes that there was not enough “commonality” with their claims. Meaning because all of the women had different managers, worked in different store locations and all had different circumstances they couldn’t show that they were all affected in the same way. When dealing with a class action lawsuit it is required that all of the victims are affected in the same way.
- The Establishment Clause is apart of the first amendment stating that Congress cannot put any laws into effect that will establish a religion. This means that Congress cannot make a new religion, put one religion over another. This is establishishing keeping government and religion seprated. The Lemon Test comes from a court case Lemon v. Kurtzman, and is used to determine if the Establishment Clause has been violated.
- The First Amendment protects the burning of the US flag because in the first amendment it states we are given the right of Freedom of expression. Burning a United States flag was labeled a form of symbolic speech by the Supreme Court. The famous court case Texas v. Johnson is an example of how this action is protected. Even though Johnson was arrested the Supreme Court ruled his actions acceptable because of the first amendment. However congress did try to pass the Flag Protection Act to overturn this decision but this act was quickly deemed unconstitutional.
- When someone is says they are “taking the Fifth” they are referring to the Fifth amendment. The Fifth amendment states that when a individual feels that they could say something that might incriminate themselves they can choose to not say anything at all. This is to protect individuals usually in a legal or government setting such as a court trial.
- Williams states in her essay that the war on terror is a new type of war because it doesnt meet the same criteria of a traditional war. When we think of a trafitonal war we think of a battlefield, fights between troops and eventually a settled peace agreement between those at war. However the war on terror is a war on the idea or plot of terrorism. In this it is unclear who the enemy is and the only way to fight this war is to take security precautions in all aspects to protect our country.
- Roving Wiretaps allows investigators to have active surveillance on a suspect across multiple deviced without having a new warrant for each device. This is argued to violate the 4th amendment because the lack of specificity of the devices not being listed in the warrant. Also because of risk of a breach because of how people share devices and an innocent person can be being watched without warrant.
- Sneak & Peak Warrants have argued to be violating the fourth amendment. This allows the FBI to search a home or business without a warrant or immediately letting the target know if there is suspension of a terrorist attack. This blatantly violates the 4th amendment because it is stated that a warrant is mandatory for a search.
- Both authors agree that the constitution was written by the wealthy capitalist class. The lower or working class, whoever is not a part of the 1% was left out of writing of the constitution. This was to prevent them from making decisions that would benefit them in any way. Beard made the example that farmers were most interested in the safety of their financial interest. While Parenti tells us how the elite were focused on creating a government structure that maintained their power and control over economic resources.
- There are a number of similarities and differences between early US society and our society today. Some similarities include that there is a clear view on what is considered the lower and upper classes. Also the wealthy still have the majority of the power over the economy, and lastly the concerns that the lower class have about property and wealth distribution remain the same. Some differences are that voting is highly accessible to all Americans and we have more of a democratic voting system. Also this economy has more of a flexible social class.
- The reason why the people who wrote the constitution were so afraid of democracy is because of the power that it gives the lower class to make decisions on the economy. To them it’s a risk of empowering the lower/ working class. This is because the constitution was designed to limit democratic influence.
- The concept of faction reminds me of social classes. Faction is a group of people that share a similar interest that can create conflict with others. Even though social classes divide the economy by wealth, those who are in the same social classes typically share the same interests of the economy.
- Madison describes the source of wealth as “The diverse faculties of men”. Faculties refer to someone’s natural talent, work ethic, skills etc. So he is basically stating that private property comes from the natural difference between people.
- I neither agree or disagree with this statement. I feel that it is bais to say that only because of natural abilities are able to produce wealth and also people who are just as talented with a great work ethic remain poor because of unequal opportunities. However, I do believe that it takes a certain level of talent and drive to push yourself to obtain wealth that not everyone has.
- The core mission of the US government as stated in the passages was to protect the rights of property owners. It doesn’t surprise me because even though our government is more inclusive today, there are still people in government today that still agree with these perspectives.
- I am not surprised that federalist 10 was not in favor of democracy. Democracy promotes inclusiveness and gives power to the lower class and working to make decisions about the economy and that goes against everything presented in the passage. A republican government would most likely put the power into a wealthy upper class politician that will make decisions that will benefit the upper class.
- The role of citizens in government is different between the different systems. In a federal system, power is shared between the national and regional governments, and citizens make decisions by voting in national and state elections. In a confederation is when there is an alliance between states and citizens are involved in their states government decisions. Lastly in an unitary system citizens mainly vote in national government elections considering that an unitary system is when all power is held by the national government.
- I understand the system of division of power is all government branches keeping each other in check so that one does not overpower the others.
- During the pandemic the federal government influenced the actions of NY state governments by federal funding, mandates and policy guidance. The federal government helps guide the state and local government in times of need such as a worldwide pandemic. For example, New York state was given federal funding for vaccination, testing and school reopening. Also things like federal clean air and water requirements are mandatory to be followed by each state to ensure public safety.
