I seek clarity on the following question:

During the civil war the Southern States were referred to as the Confederacy. I understand that when a group of nations form an alliance it is called a “Confederation”. Does this mean that all of the other States (there were 34 states at the time of the Civil War) were also a Confederation? So, were there 2 Confederations in existence? Did the other states form (implicitly) an alliance?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Cheers,

Ronald Hinds

Hello Yiying Wu, discussion Board 9.2

Thanks for your submission but allow me to add my 2 cents.

You need to write more to flush out your answers. Take your time.

Question number 2: Please list the various amendments that pertain to the question. I reckon that there are more amendments than the 4th amendment which were violated. You should include the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 9th amendments.

I suggest that you re-read the data which the Professor provided for this module.

Cheers,

Ronald Hinds

Yiying Wu-the Patriot Act-Module 9.2

1. Wars are usually fought against specific groups, specific places, and specific things. The War on Terror is a war of ideas, which means the enemy becomes anyone who scares us. By fighting a war against an idea instead of a country, we might destroy the freedom we’re trying to protect.
2. “Roving Wiretaps” seem sketchy because wiretappers can sweep up innocent people’s communities without listing specific devices or clearly identifying targets. This disturbs Fourth Amendment rights, especially protection against unreasonable searches.
3. These are search warrants that allow police search a person’s home or business without telling them right away. Police can go in ,look for proof ,and leave before person finds out. Eventually, the police must tell the person about the search, just not at the time. However, civil libertarians worry they reduce oversight.

POL 100 Sec A050

Discussion Board 12.1 Walmart vs Betty Dukes

1. What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit”).

With regards Walmart Stores Inc. vs Betty Dukes case in 2011, the Supreme Court of the United states ruled 5-4 against certifying the class action lawsuit. In a split decision delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, a darling of the Conservative Republicans, the case could not proceed as a class action case. One question was “could the 1.5 million female workforce claim commonality i.e., a class that shares a common problem”? Could a court render a common solution to this issue? Could each one of the women individually prove that, on account of being a woman, they were discriminated by Walmart Inc.?

Class action lawsuits fall under the Federal Rule of Civil Service Procedure 23 (b) (3), or the “damages class action” rule which governs class actions in Federal court. In this case this rule was used to adjudicate the kind of relief this class of women can seek. 

• The b(2) was where the Dukes case was seeking injunctive relief. Injunctive relief aims to prevent harm that cannot be adequately compensated with money.
• The b(3) is applicable where classes are seeking only monetary relief.
• The Walmart vs Dukes class action lawsuit did not allow for both b(2) and b(3).

With this misclassification, the women faced a major setback. The commonality question was also a problem for the women to overcome because the 1.5 million female employees, while they all faced discrimination, could not legitimately be litigated all at once. In addition, common questions of law and fact among the 1.5 million women must outweigh the individual issues.

POL 100 Sec A050

Discussion Board 11.1 The Court System

1. In what ways is the court system better suited to protect the individual, than are the elected branches of government (such as Congress; or the Mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly)? Give an example to illustrate your argument.

Judges have lifetime tenure and that can mean they are not influenced by the political winds of the day. In some states judges are elected rather than appointed and this can affect their rulings in court.The justices of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President and, after hearings in the Judiciary Committee, a vote is eventually taken by the full senate (their “advise and consent” role). Presidents like to put their stamp on things by nominating a candidate with the party of the President. She takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The same Constitution penned by the Founding Fathers of the Republic who had their own biases, including a deep seated hatred for Democracy. Presidents also nominate Judges for lower Federal court. She consults with the state’s U.S. Senators before making her nomination. Before making her nominations, the senators exert considerable influence on selection of judges in her State. 

I am not sure that the court system is better suited to protect the individual than are the elected branches of government. Is Justice Really blind? Political scientists have confirmed that political culture affects the operation of government institutions. The Judiciary is an independent branch of the government but the Justices read the newspapers and are aware of the political discourse. The first Catholic Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, believed that the Founders’ intent was to exclude African Americans from the declaration of equality. In the 1857 ruling in the Dred Scott case, Taney opined that the black man had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. The Framers of the US Constitution wanted the Federal government to have limited power, so they limited the kinds of cases federal courts can decide.

2. Think about how federal judges get to become judges – unlike with Presidents, Mayors and members of Congress (and other legislatures), they are not elected, but rather appointed. Many Americans have thus called the federal courts systems, 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? 

The well heeled moneyed class, the minority faction, plays an outsized role in US society. The framers of the Constitution used fine words but the many who were disenfranchised would say: “Fine words butter no parsnips”. The Founding Fathers had a deep-seated hatred for democracy. They did not want to be ruled by the majority faction. They wanted a government which would protect the interests of the minority faction with their large tracts of land, their slaves, their indentured servants, their money and their plantations. As a back-up, the US Constitution established the Supreme Court with the Judiciary Act of 1789 which was signed into law by President George Washington. The act established a 6 member Supreme Court (since 1877 it has been 9 members) and the position of the Government’s Chief Prosecutor, the attorney general. The first Attorney General was Edmund Jennings Randolph. The justices are appointed by the sitting US President for life. This suited the Founding Fathers who hated democracy. These Founding Fathers belonged to a wealthy undemocratic social class and this class played a leading role in the new system of Government. The Supreme Court has the final say in interpreting the Constitution and federal law. Its decisions on constitutional issues are final and can only be altered by a new High Court ruling. As an institution it establishes precedence and they uphold it. Stare Decisis is the legal doctrine that compels the lower courts to follow established law. Without Stare Decisis, precedents would be mere suggestions. The legal system must be seen to be consistent. 

Taking everything into account, I agree that the Supreme Court is an un-elected, anti-democratic part of the federal government. The framers of the Constitution made sure of that.

POL 100 Sec A050

Discussion Board 9.2   The Dark Days of the War on Terror

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?

Patricia Williams does a good service in doing research for us and pedagogically explaining, in The Guardian newspaper, the loss of our civil liberties. I agree with her that the war on terror is a new type of war and some of the measures enacted by the Republican President George Walker Bush’s administration were unconstitutional. What is new about it is that it was not a war over a piece of land (like Britain’s war over the Falklands), not a war against specific bodies or resources, like oil. It was a war against terror, a war against fear. She thinks the war on terror is so broadly defined, and that fear is the key, and a war against terrorism is a war of the mind. In this instance it was a war which was spawned by ethnic profiling, and that even the highest prosecutor in the Republic, John Ashcroft said that war-on-terror criminals do not deserve the protections proffered by the document, the Constitution, which was penned by the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers who were from a minority faction, who hated democracy, who were land owners and slave owners, who were wealthy and who possessed good faculties. 

The old American tenet of innocence until proven guilty was reversed. The government trampled on the sober rights enunciated by the Bill of Rights and enshrined in the Constitution. There was even justification for using torture to extract information from suspected terrorists. One of the hallmarks of our Republic and our way of life is our independent judiciary. The attack on our civil liberties which were partially upheld in previous traditional wars, including the use of the world courts like Germany’s Nuremberg, should have been an option to be taken advantage of. Her caution about a dictatorial trajectory which are considered banana Republics are quite apropos. It reminds me of the specter of a creeping Big Brother.

2. In what ways does the  “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights? Which amendment(s) dos it seem to violate and why?

The Patriot Act was passed in the US Senate in October 2001 after the bombing of the iconic World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. It had a specter of Big Brother written all over its provisions. Sixteen surveillance provisions expired on December 31, 2005. One of its controversial pieces was the “Roving Wiretaps” provision. Section 206 allowed for one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices. This one wiretap authorization would eliminate the need for separate authorizations for a suspect’s cell phone, her PC and Blackberry for example. Some of the terrorists were technologically savvy. Some senators were critical because this provision raised issues of privacy violations, contained in the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution, of any innocent parties who may come into casual contact with a supposed terrorist. But it was not only the 4th Amendment which guarantees a right to privacy, it was a plethora of amendments viz., the 1st amendment, the 3rd amendment, the 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments. The US Supreme Court sees all these amendments as providing a broad view of privacy rights and protections.

3. What about “Sneak & Peek” Warrants?

The name is appropriate, and this provision, Sec. 213, did not expire on December 31, 2005. It allowed the authorities to search a home or business without prior notification of the target of the probe.This provision already allowed searches of the homes of drug dealers and criminals without notice. Critics opined that this provision allowed the use of “sneak and peek” warrants for minor crimes and not just for terror and espionage. Some worried about violations of the 4th amendment. The sticky point was prior notification and its application.

POL 100 Sec A050 First Amendment; Establishment Clause and Fifth Amendments

Discussion Board 9.1

1.  Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”.

With the “Lemon Test” the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1971 in the Lemon v Kurtzman decision, established this test for deciding whether a law or an action by the government, that promotes a particular religious practice should be allowed to stand. Thomas Jefferson wanted to be sure of a separation between the church and the state. The Supreme Court established that there were 3 criteria that had to be satisfied for the law to be constitutional:

• The boundary between government (the State) and religion (the Church) should be clear enough to not require extensive effort by the government.
• The action, or law, to be initiated, has to be neutral. The law or action must not advance or prevent a religious practice.
• The action has to have no religious or spirtual basis.

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

Flag burning is protected by the First Amendment. The first amendment guarantees the right to express one’s views in public. You have the right to free speech. Mr. Gregory Lee Johnson, in 1984, set fire to a flag of the United States at a Republican Party political event in Dallas, Texas. He was arrested for desecrating the flag and convicted in a court of law. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court which ruled in 1989, in the case of Texas v Johnson that burning the flag was a form of speech, and it was protected under the first amendment. People were outraged at this decision. Congress passed more laws, regarding this issue, but they too were ruled to be unconstitutional.

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

It means you have the right, under the constitution, to remain silent. This is the most well-known aspect, which is often summarized as “I’m taking the Fifth”. It means you don’t have to answer questions from law enforcement or in court if you believe the answers could be used to prosecute you for a crime. It also guarantees one the due process of law.

Module 7.1 Federal, Confederation & Unitary

1. Describe the primary differences in the role of citizens in government, among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems.

a). The United States is a federal republic but it was a confederation from 1781 to 1789. It transitioned to a federation in 1789 with the ratification of the US Constitution, which was penned by the Founding Fathers, who could not conceal their hatred for democracy. The federation allowed for a national government with defined powers limited by the Constitution. These defined powers, contained in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, provide a template for the authority which the government has. Note that these defined powers or enumerated powers are distinct from implied powers. Implied powers are necessary to carry out the enumerated powers not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Citizens can vote for the Executive during elections but they do not select the President. An Electoral College makes the decision but it is not always the candidate with the most votes. A democracy would mean that people could vote directly for laws and have a stake in the functioning of society. The elected representatives, in Congress, and legislative bodies like in Albany, the capital of New York State, vote for the laws.

b). When the federal republic replaced the confederation it replaced a weaker confederate system. The separation of powers is designed to prevent any single branch from becoming too powerful. The President is not a King. It established a system of checks and balances. The new system created:

• A stronger more centralized federal government
• With separate branches

(i)   the Legislative–the Congress

(ii)  the Executive–The President

(iii) the Judiciary–9 un-elected justices of the Supreme Court

As we discussed in Module 6 the United States is not a democracy but is a federal republic with a constitution. The constitution is the supreme law of the land.

c).  A unitary system is a political structure where the central government holds all the governing power. The unitary system concentrates authority in the national government. The national government [(a). the Federal government and (b). the state government] share power. One is not subordinate to the government. 

(iii). The local government has limited authority and is directly controlled by the central government. 

(iv). State governments in the United States perform separate unitary systems with their own respective authority over the territories.

(v). The county and city government within a state follow the legislation and laws of that state. It is not a pure democracy so citizens do not vote laws. That’s what the elected representatives do.

2. Briefly explain how you understand the system of division of power.

I understand the system of the division of power to mean the two (2) autonomous {Independent; subject to only its own laws} levels of the government. The Division of Powers is the gist of Federalism. Each level has authority allotted to it by the Constitution of the United States. 

3. How does the federal government shape the actions of state and local governments? Write your answer based on doing a bit of research on how the federal government has influenced the actions of NY state and local governments, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The federal government influences New York state and local government (there are over 3,400 active local governments in New York State and 63 mayors) through funding, mandates and constitutional provisions. There is one Mayor who serves the five boroughs of New York City. Each borough has an elected Borough President. These Borough Presidents are part of the city legislature branch. They are not part of the executive branch headed by Mayor Eric Adams.

By federal mandates I mean requirements which the feds imposed on the state and local governments especially with regard to funding. The  federal government can also have unfunded mandates where federal programs have to be implemented without full funding by the feds. These unfunded mandates can be burdensome to the state and local governments. An example of an unfunded mandate in New York City is the state law requiring schools to reduce class sizes. While this is a policy aimed at improving education, it requires New York City to hire thousands of additional teachers and potentially build or modify school facilities to accommodate smaller classes.

During COVID 19 the feds transferred $900 billion dollars to state, local and Tribal governments in the USA. The feds provided significant resources to assist people who were financially affected because of the pandemic. Attention was paid to public health regulations to mitigate the spreading of this dreaded disease. All of these efforts meant allocation of money and guidance to help. The federal government influenced the actions of NY state and local governments, during the COVID-19 pandemic in the following ways:

• Through Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES). By way of CARES, CUNY received $455 million.
• American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act direct grants were doled out to qualified students to cover food, housing, health care and child-care expenses.
• Stimulus checks.
• Fiscal relief to state and local governments to cushion the financial impact of the pandemic.
• Funding for testing, contact tracing, vaccine distribution and provision for the issuing of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
• Grants and loans for small businesses.
• Assistance to renters and homeowners to alleviate housing hardships.
• Money for mental services for essential workers and students.
• Eighty two million ($82M) from the funds for unemployment relief. 

The federal government provided significant aid to New York State and New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic through various pieces of legislation and programs. In this particular situation the symbiotic relationship between the federal government and New York state and local governments worked for the public good. However, Governor Andrew Cuomo who was one of America’s most trusted voices in the early days of the COVID pandemic became a pariah. Cuomo made a decision to require nursing homes to accept COVID-19-positive patients when the hospitals were overflowing with patients. He hid data about the deaths of nursing home residents. There was an investigation done and in the end Cuomo resigned as Governor of New York State. 

In an earlier economic tailspin in 1975 when it was facing bankruptcy President Gerald Ford said to New York City “Drop Dead”. During the outbreak of COVID 19 the President said to New York City; “Help is on the way” and people benefited from the federal largess.

POL 100 Sec A050

Discussion Board 6.2

1. What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of?

I am reminded of Louis Althusser’s concepts of ideology. He talks about two apparatuses: The Repressive State Apparatus (RSAs) and the Ideological State Apparatus (ISAs).  The RSA is about the state’s repressive apparatus, the army, police, prisons and the courts. The ISA comprises several agencies viz., covering discipline and obedience; the Church, and schools. When reading and thinking about the majority and minority factions I had a flashback to the previous discussions.

2. According to Federalist #10 what is the source of wealth (private property)? What factor explains why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property, and others don’t and remain poor)? 

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, believed that the diversity in the faculties of man point to a superiority of the educated, who belong to the minority faction. This diversity allowed for the educated, wealthy, land owning, and upper class citizens the right to re-inforce their private property portfolio and on the other hand for the poor and working class and those without advanced faculties obstacles; which are near impossible to overcome. James Madison thought that it was incumbent on the government to protect these highfalutin upper class citizens, with advanced faculties, from the majority. He preached that the government is there to see that those who represent the minority, having acquired private property are not hampered by the majority. He had firm ideas about America being a Republic and not a democracy. A thriving society with people from different backgrounds and from different social classes would fare better and would be dismissive of the minority faction lording it over them.    

3. Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?

I do not agree with James Madison’s explanation about wealth and poverty. His treatise, penned as the Federalist Paper #10, is apropos to his republicanism where the minority faction vote for the laws and acts as an affront to a democracy and where the direct participation of the citizenry is the order of the day. A democracy is where all the citizens can vote directly on laws rather than by the elected representatives in Congress. A place where the rich and the poor, male and female, black and white have equal rights. In the period between the American Revolution to the Constitutional Convention only property owners, white males had the right to vote. Those who were disenfranchised were the poor whites (who were not owners of property), blacks, Native Indians, women and indentured servants. 

4. What is the core mission (“first object”) of the US government? Does this surprise you, does it sound different from what our society today seems to suggest the core mission of the government is? Explain.

Madison saw the first object of government was to make sure that those who have the faculties to get rich should not have obstacles thrown their way by the poor, working class people. In today’s society the core mission of the government is to serve the needs of all the people by providing protection for maintaining law and order by providing economic relief, and protecting the citizens from internal and external threats. During the COVID19 pandemic the government tried to ensure our safety from the dreaded disease, by providing free testing, and free Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) i.e. face masks and by offering free vaccines. As a matter of fact I was able to take an Uber free of charge to and from a testing location. Where the government fell down was by not historically protecting the vulnerable, especially those poor black and brown people with pre-existing conditions. 

5. Given the discussion in questions 1-4, are you surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy, and supports a Republican (representative) form of government? Why would the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government? 

James Madison and other framers of the US Constitution disliked a pure form of democracy so I am not surprised that in Federalist Papers #10 he supports a Republican form of government. A democracy was  inimical to his upper-class interests and those of the minority faction. His class was a wealthy, slave owning, landowning and educated upper class and with all the perks that came with their status in society. He and the other framers wanted at all costs to ensure that the minority faction controlled a Republican form of government. He was afraid of the majority faction and what their role could have been in a pure democracy.