According to MLK, a just law is one that prioritizes human dignity, has moral principles, and it applies to all. An unjust law is basically the opposite; it demeans people and caters toward the interests of the powerful at the expense of the weak. He emphasizes how something isn’t always right just because it’s legal. He believed that an unjust law is usually put in place by the majority on a minority but they themselves don’t follow it. This shows how laws might appear just on paper but be applied in unfair and damaging ways.
Yes, there is a clear distinction between right and unjust laws and the effects are seen in everyday life. It affects how people connect with their communities, how they see authority, and how they decide to react when they are treated unfairly. Blindly following laws without asking questions allows for injustice to continue, with no signs of resistance near. Political involvement, social movements, and even voting behavior are often influenced by people’s perceptions of the fairness or injustice of the laws in place. Being aware of the distinction enables people to take purposeful action, for example: this distinction has served as the foundation for the civil rights movement, current protests such as Black Lives Matter, and etc.
An example of a just law, in the US today, would be the Affordable Care Act’s clause which prohibits insurance companies from refusing coverage to those with pre-existing diseases. This law helps to ensure that everyone is treated equally and has access to something as basic as healthcare, regardless of their medical history. It mirrors the equality and regard for human dignity that MLK thought a just law should uphold, but unfortunetly this law may be threatened by the introduction of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” An example of an unjust law would be certain mandatory minimum sentencing laws for non-violent drug offenses. People of color have been disproportionately impacted by these laws, which have resulted in mass incarceration without taking into account the complete circumstances of each case. They have terrible long-term effects, and dehumanize people.
The Supreme Court found that the lawsuit could not proceed as a class action in the Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart case, ruling against the female employees. The multitude of women who had worked at Wal-Mart and were alleging discrimination would not be able to file a lawsuit collectively. Each woman would have to file a case on her own and the Court used the legal notion of “commonality” to support its ruling. The plaintiffs in a class action case must have a common legal issue or experience that links their claims in order for the litigation to be certified. The majority judgment was written by Justice Scalia, who contended that the circumstances of the women were too dissimilar to be considered a single class. He emphasized that recruiting and promotion choices were left to individual shop managers and that there was no official business policy to discriminate against women. The Court ruled that there was no one “common answer” that could account for the prejudice that all of the women had to endure because each manager behaved separately. The plaintiffs provided statistical proof indicating women were routinely paid less and promoted less than males, but the court ruled that this was insufficient to demonstrate that the entire group had suffered from the same kind of discrimination.
There are some ways in which the court system is better suited to protect the individual than the elected branches of government are. Since it is not subject to political pressure, the legal system is frequently better able to defend individual rights because it is structured to do so. Although the president, Congress, and other elected branches are influenced by party politics, public opinion, and reelection campaigns, the courts, particularly federal courts, are set up to be independent. Judges can now base their rulings on constitutional principles rather than political popularity thanks to their independence. The judiciary functions as a check on the tyranny of the majority, making sure that all, even those who are marginalized, have their rights respected, something that the other branches would be reluctant to do.For example, in 1954, the Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education. Segregation was politically unpopular at the time, so many public officials were either too scared or hesitant to speak out against it, especially in the South. Regardless, the Court upheld Black students’ rights in spite of criticism from the public.
The Supreme Court does appear to be anti-democratic on the surface because justices are appointed to their positions and are not elected; the public has no direct say in who sits on the Court. However, it was designed like this on purpose. The dominance of factions, majority groups that have the ability to violate the rights of minorities, is one of the threats to democracy, according to James Madison’s Federalist #10. The Founders wanted to establish a department of government that could withstand popular pressure and uphold constitutional ideals, even when those values are unpopular, which is why judges are appointed as opposed to being elected. Even if the majority disagrees, judges are obligated to enforce justice and the Constitution. Madison thought that a class of property owners with a good education would act as a “buffer” between the general public’s views and national policy decisions. Judges are therefore selected by the president and confirmed by the Senate, a procedure that is mostly dominated by the political class. With its pro-democratic purpose, the Court protects the minority and the individuals rights against the possible abuses of elected majority.
According to P. Williams, the war on terror differs from typical conflicts in that it lacks a defined enemy, beginning, and end. The US is battling terrorism, which can happen anywhere, including inside its own borders, rather than a foreign nation. Because of this, it becomes an ongoing, unseen conflict in which people may be seen as threats and civil liberties may be reduced for the sake of security.
One part of the Patriot Act that may violate part of the Bill of Rights is Section 206 which is the Roving Wiretap. This allows monitoring without identifying the specific phone or device being tapped. The Fourth Amendment, which is meant to protect against searches and seizures without a warrant, is compromised by this. Since this power is unrestricted, it may be used to monitor innocent users of the same network or device, which would discourage private communication.
Another part of the Patriot Act that may violate part of the Bill of Rights is Section 213 which is the “Sneak & Peek” Warrants. This allows law enforcement search someone’s home or business without any prior notification. The notice is delayed, so one may not know until much later. This section violates the Fourth Amendment which is meant to protect against searches and seizures without a warrant which the person(s) should be aware of. Warrants can be challenged, but not if they’re delayed. This is a violation of privacy by the government.
The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause states that the state is not allowed to endorse or create an established religion. This makes it easier to distinguish between religion and the state. Courts apply the Lemon Test, which started in the Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman, to determine whether a statute violates this provision. Three questions are asked in the test: Is there a non-religious purpose for the law? Does it avoid harming or advancing religion? Does it also stop the government and church from becoming too involved? A statute violates the Establishment Clause if it doesn’t meet any of these requirements. By ensuring the government maintains its neutrality, this standard contributes to the protection of religious freedom.
Yes, the First Amendment protects the burning of the US flag. In the case of Texas v. Johnson, the court ruled in favor of the burning of the flag as a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned the US flag during a protest outside the Republican Convention in Texas. He was arrested and convicted in Texas, but the Supreme Court stated that the government wasn’t allowed to stop the freedom of expression because they find it offensive. This case maintained the right to freedom of expression whether it may be controversial, as long as there is no violence or threats to the public.
When someone says “I’m taking the Fifth,” that means they are choosing not to speak because anything they say could be used against them. They would be exercising their Fifth Amendment right to silence in such situations. This implies that they are not required to provide testimony or respond to questions in a way that might cast them in a negative light. In the court system, it’s acts as a protection that helps ensure that people aren’t coerced into confessing or have their statements used against them.
I find the idea of faction to be quite similar to interest groups and social class. People from different economic classes—landowners, merchants, poor farmers, and enslaved people—had quite distinct interests, as we have learnt from previous readings like Parenti and Beard. This is consistent with Madison’s description of a “faction”: any group of individuals who are bound together by a shared passion or interest and who may act against the rights of others or the greater good. A majority of poor people who wish to forgive debts or transfer property might be a hazardous faction for Madison as it puts the affluent elite minority in jeopardy.
According to the Federalist #10, Madison claims that “diversity in the faculties of men” is the basis of riches and private property. In this context, “faculties” refers to a person’s born talents, skills, or abilities, particularly their capacity to own and manage property. Madison argues that the unequal distribution of money is due to the fact that some individuals are better able to accumulate wealth than others. Since the writers of the Constitution considered private property as a product of individual ability rather than societal institutions or unjust arrangements, this concept demonstrates their belief that inequality was normal and even important. This clarifies why the Constitution was drafted to safeguard property rights rather than to promote economic equality.
In my opinion, Madison’s reasoning is straightforward, but fails to take into account how racial, power, and opportunity structures impact people’s chances of success. Many individuals are poor because they are born into poverty or because they are not allowed to access education, employment, or property, even when born skill or effort does play a part. Others have advantages and inherit money that are unrelated to skill. Therefore, no, I don’t entirely agree with Madison’s viewpoint since it views inequality as normal even if it frequently results from unjust institutions.
Madison believed that protecting people’s uneven ability to acquire property—that is, their capacity to accumulate and retain wealth—should be the first object of government. Therefore, defending property rights is the primary duty of the government, even if doing so results in class disparity. This does surprise me a little because we are taught that the role of the government is to preserve justice and freedom, serve all people equally, and advance the benefit of society as a whole. According to Madison, the Constitution was drafted more to shield the rich from the poor than to provide for everyone.
No, Madison’s Federalist #10 opposition to democracy does not surprise me. His writings make it clear that he was afraid that if too many poor people had a voice in politics, they may vote to deprive the wealthy of their money. Therefore, he favored a republic in which only a tiny, well-educated elite would be chosen to make “wise” judgments. In this manner, the government would control popular will and shield property owners from the negative effects of majority rule. This illustrates how closely the Constitution was linked to class concerns, particularly those of the wealthy. Madison had little faith in common people in positions of authority, particularly if they lacked property. He created a structure to limit their influence rather than giving them more authority.
The constitution was written by those who owned land, invested in manufacturing, loaned money, etc.– it was written by the wealthy elite. There were many people of good standing, some notable figures being George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris; they all had favorable job positions such as merchants, slaveholders, and creditors. In Charles Beard’s text, he refers to people with land and slaves as those who had “real property,” and people with money and investments as this with “personal property.” Meanwhile, Michael Parenti describes them as “gentlemen” or the “Founding Fathers” who were more interested in protecting wealth than expanding democracy. Those completely excluded from participating–the voiceless class–were free Black people, enslaved people, women, indentured servants, poor white farmers, and men without property. Parenti highlights that only about 10% of the population could vote, and even fewer could hold office due to the strict property qualifications. An example being that poor farmers, especially those involved in Shays’ Rebellion, were cursed by taxes and debt. Beard mentioned that those unable to participate had no voting rights and they were not represented in the Constitutional Convention. An example being that small farmers were a large debtor class because they were usually squatters or forced to buy land from speculators.
The social class structure of early United States society definitely has its similarities in today’s society, but there are also some major differences. In the early U.S. society, those who had power and voice was decided by wealth and land ownership. While wealth still strongly influences politics today, legal voting rights are more widely accepted. Similar to the early U.S., those who control the media, industries, and capital have the most political influence. Today, more people can vote, but the systemic inequality still creates obstacles to real participation. An example being that a billionaire can hold major influence in politics even if they are not running for office, they can do so by funding politicians. The class divide between the wealthy elite and working class still exists, it’s just evolved.
People who wrote the Constitution were afraid of democracy because they feared the majority, which was the working poor. They feared that they would use democracy to challenge their wealth and power. For example, in James Madison’s “Federalist #10”, he states that the non-wealthy citizens might start to demand things like debt forgiveness or the redistribution of property, which was a seen as a threat to elite interests. Beard also reveals that creditors, merchants, and landowners wanted a government that would block any legislation that helped debtors. The founders worked to build a system that looked democratic, but was designed to limit the majority faction because they feared if the poor people had power they would vote to take wealth from the rich.
There are primary differences in the role of citizens in government, among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems. The national and state governments share power in a federal system, such as the USA. People can participate in town hall meetings, serve on juries, and vote at the federal, state, and municipal levels. The Confederation is where the central government is weak and member states have power. With minimal direct involvement in national politics, citizens largely exert their influence through state governments. The Unitary System is where the central government has all important power and has the power to establish or abolish local governments. Local administrations rely on central directions, and citizens mostly engage at the national level.
The system of division of power is split between the national government, states governments, and the shared areas. The national government which can be defense and currency, the states governments which can be education a policed, and the share areas which can be tastes and transportation. Because no level is in charge, this divide guarantees checks and balances and enables local governments to customize policies to meet the requirements of their communities.
Through financing and direction, the federal government influenced New York’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Federal Acts such as CARES, CRRSA, and ARP provided NY with more than $14 billion in education funds to help schools with mental health, safety improvements, and remote learning. There was state and local government relief, $5.1 billion from the Coronavirus Relief Fund was given to state and local initiatives in New York. There was also mass relief, as New York residents, small companies, and health care organizations received $272 billion in federal COVID help. NY’s emergency declarations ,like mask regulations, stay-at-home orders, were backed by federal guidelines. NY worked with organizations including FEMA, which provided staff and medical stations.
Ideology is the concept of one’s beliefs and values that shapes how they view others and their overall perception of the world. It’s more subconscious than conscious, often taught to us without us realizing it. It gets taught to us through school, religion, family, the media, and just about any other social setting. Our surroundings influence the ideas and values we hold, what we believe is “right” or “wrong”, and things one may perceive as normal while others may perceive it as foreign or abnormal. An example of this would be the media, specifically advertisements and commercials. They often tell us to buy things to make us more attractive or happy, or to “boost confidence.” It subconsciously sends the message that in order to thrive in life you must rely on material things rather. It gives the idea that we are defined by what we own and not who we are. This is a tactic used to keep capitalism booming.
The main difference in conservative and liberal ideologies is that they are very different ways of thinking about how the government should be ran, how it should work, and what values are most important to the citizens. Conservatives hold more traditional values and they believe in individual responsibility and limited government. Often they support high military spending. They believe the government shouldn’t have a role in people lives, more hands-off. They think that people shouldn’t rely on the government, rather the people should build success from hard work and take care of themselves. Conservatives usually believe in and push for law and order. On the other hand, believe that the government should have a hand in the lives for the citizens like helping citizens and creating a fair society–especially because of the effects of racism, poverty, etc. They value equality, social justice, environment protection, etc. An example would be their support for raising minimum wage to help working families afford basic needs. From my understanding, conservatives value freedom, property, and tradition; while liberals value equality, fairness, and government support. The topic of health care can help to highlight the difference and divide between conservatives and liberals as it shoes how their values shape what they view as right and wrong. A conservative may argue that it’s not the governments job to give people healthcare because the people should work hard and earn it themselves. A liberal may present an opposing argument that healthcare is a human right and the poor shouldn’t have to suffer because they can’t afford it.
Althusser’s definition of ideology is more complex than the common definition. Althusser’s definition of ideology is that it is a system of beliefs we unknowingly adopt that shapes how we think and act. Things that we believe to normal/abnormal or right/wrong, has been taught to us subconsciously. These ideas are learned through school, the media, family/friends, etc; these institutions all play a role in leading people to accept the system as it is, like it can’t be changed and capitalism is a perfect example. Ideological State Apparatuses is what he called this concept, it teaches us to maintain the “status quo”—this also helps with keeping inequality and injustice alive. An example of ideology being taught is through school, we learn to be on time, respect authority, stay quiet unless told me authority, follow a set routine, etc. All these lessons help mold people in the perfect employee in the working world which keeps the cycle going.
The fact that the wealthiest 1% of Americans hold more than 40% of the country’s wealth is the statistic that most surprised me. This statistic is a bit scary because it demonstrates how much wider the wealth disparity has gotten in the US. It casts doubt on the widely held notion that everyone can achieve success in America if they put in the necessary effort: The American Dream. Rather, it implies that a elite minority, the “1%” controls money and the power that accompanies it, making it impossible for the majority of people to ever “catch up” despite their best efforts. In addition to feeling unjust, that degree of disparity is harmful to democracy.
There are many drawbacks to living in a society with such extreme income disparity. First, because rich people and companies can use their money to influence elections and public policy, it can result in political corruption. It also implies that working-class and poor neighborhoods suffer from the constant underfunding or unequal distribution of public services like housing, healthcare, and schools. This trend is evident in real life, such as in NYC, where public schools in affluent communities receive significantly more funding and resources than those in less affluent regions. This perpetuates the cycle of inequality, making it more difficult for those with lower incomes to succeed.
