1. P. Williams points out that the war on terror is different because it doesn’t involve traditional armies or clear battle lines. Instead, it’s fought against groups or individuals who use terrorist tactics and hide among civilians, making it harder to identify the enemy. It’s also more about intelligence gathering, surveillance, and preventing attacks before they happen, rather than fighting big battles on a battlefield. This makes it an ongoing and more complicated kind of conflict.
2. Roving wiretaps allow the government to listen in on any communication device a suspect might use without needing a new warrant each time. This is controversial because it goes against the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and requires specific warrants. These wiretaps are broader and less specific, so they can feel like the government is spying without proper oversight or limits, which worries a lot of people about privacy rights.
3. Sneak and peek warrants let police search a person’s home or property without telling them right away. This can feel like a violation of privacy and due process because the person doesn’t get immediate notice or the chance to challenge the search quickly. It’s seen as another way the Fourth Amendment protections can be weakened since people are kept in the dark about government actions that affect their property.

1. In a federal system, like the U.S., citizens have multiple ways to participate. They vote for leaders at the national level like the President and Congress, but also for governors, state legislators, and local officials like mayors or city councils. This means people have influence at different levels depending on the issue. For example, someone might vote for a state governor to handle local education policies and also vote for the President who deals with national defense.

In a confederation, the central government is very weak, and the states or regions hold most of the power. Citizens mostly interact with their state governments rather than a strong national one. The European Union is a modern example where countries cooperate but keep most of their own power, so citizens mainly deal with their own country’s government.

In a unitary system, like in the UK, most power is held by the central government. Local governments exist but mainly follow the central government’s rules. So citizens mostly focus on the national government since it controls most decisions. For example, the UK Parliament makes laws that affect the whole country, and local councils mainly carry out those policies.

2. Division of power means spreading out government authority so it’s shared between national and state governments. This helps keep any one level from becoming too powerful. For example, in the U.S., only the federal government can print money and make treaties with other countries, but states run their own schools and handle most criminal laws. Sometimes both can tax citizens and build roads. This balance means states can make decisions that fit their local needs while still being part of the whole country.

3. During COVID-19, the federal government played a big role by giving states money and guidelines to fight the virus. For example, through the CARES Act and American Rescue Plan, the federal government sent billions of dollars to states and cities to help with healthcare, testing, and economic relief. New York used this funding to support hospitals and distribute vaccines.

Also, the CDC, a federal agency, issued recommendations on things like mask-wearing and social distancing that New York followed. Governor Andrew Cuomo issued executive orders requiring masks indoors and limiting gatherings, following these guidelines. The federal government’s Operation Warp Speed helped speed up vaccine development, and New York coordinated with federal officials to get vaccines to its residents quickly. So the federal government set the big picture rules and provided resources, while New York and other states handled the specific rules and enforcement based on local conditions.

1. The court system is better at protecting individual rights because judges don’t have to worry about getting re elected, so they can focus on what the Constitution says instead of what’s popular. For example, in Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court made sure people are told their rights when arrested even though that might not have been something the public or local government wanted at the time. The courts can step in when laws or actions by elected officials go too far and violate someone’s rights.
2. Yeah, the Supreme Court is kind of anti democratic since justices aren’t elected but that’s actually the point. They’re supposed to be independent from politics so they can make decisions based on the law, not public opinion. The founders didn’t want judges to be influenced by majority pressure. Like in Federalist #10, Madison talks about protecting against the dangers of factions and majority rule. Appointing judges helps make sure they stay focused on fairness and the Constitution, even when it’s unpopular.

The Supreme Court ruled against the women workers who were trying to sue Wal-Mart as a group in a class action lawsuit for gender discrimination. Basically, these women argued that Wal-Mart had a company-wide pattern of paying women less and promoting them less often than men.

But the Court said the group of women couldn’t move forward as a single class, and the main reason came down to the idea of “commonality.”

In legal terms, commonality means that the people in a class action lawsuit must all have a shared legal issue or experience. The Court decided that the women didn’t have enough in common meaning, their situations weren’t similar enough. Wal-Mart didn’t have a single, official company policy that was discriminatory. Instead, decisions about pay and promotion were mostly left to local managers. So the Court said there was no clear, common reason to hold Wal-Mart responsible across the board.

That reasoning made it much harder for large groups of workers to sue big companies together in cases like this. Even though many of the women had similar stories, the Court said that wasn’t enough under the rules for class action lawsuits.

1. The Establishment Clause says the government can’t set up an official religion or favor one religion over others, it’s all about keeping church and state separate. The Lemon Test is a way courts use to figure out if a government action breaks this rule. It checks three things, does the action have a non religious purpose, does it avoid promoting or hurting religion, and does it keep the government from getting too involved with religion? If it fails any of those, it would be considered unconstitutional
2. Yes, it is. The Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson said burning the flag counts as symbolic speech, which is protected by the First Amendment. Even though a lot of people find it disrespectful, the government can’t punish someone just for expressing themselves that way.
3. When someone says “I’m taking the Fifth,” they’re using their right under the Fifth Amendment not to say anything that could get them in trouble legally. Basically, they’re refusing to answer questions that might make them look guilty or self incriminate. Bassicly like when people say they are not speaking untill there lawyer arrives.

1. Based on the readings, the social class that wrote the Constitution was the property-owning elite, including wealthy merchants, slaveholding planters, and urban businessmen. This class had voting rights, economic power, and political influence. For example, men like Hamilton of New York and Robert Morris of Philadelphia represented interests in banking, shipping, and manufacturing. The class that was excluded from writing the Constitution included slaves, indentured servants, women, and most poor white men who did not meet property qualifications. These groups could not vote and had no political voice. For instance, small farmers in debt were pushing for laws like paper money and debt relief, which threatened the interests of the elite.

2. I think the social class structure back in early U.S. history was definitely different from what we have today, but there are still some similarities. In 1787, the people who wrote the Constitution were mostly wealthy landowners, merchants, and slaveholders. They had power because they owned property and had money. Meanwhile, huge groups of people like women, enslaved people, poor farmers, and even some working men were completely left out of the process. They didn’t have a voice at all. Pretty much everyone can vote now, and we have laws that are supposed to protect equality. But at the same time, money still plays a big role in politics. Rich people and big businesses still have a lot of influence through lobbying and campaign funding. So while more people are included today, class still affects who really gets heard, kind of like it did back then just in a different way.

3. The people who wrote the Constitution were afraid of full democracy because they were mostly from the upper social classes wealthy landowners, merchants, and slaveholders who wanted to protect their property and power. They worried that if too much power was given to the general population, especially the working class and poor farmers, those groups might vote for laws that took away property or forgave debts.

1. The main difference between owners and employees, according to Reading 4.3, is about who controls the resources that produce things. Owners have the stuff like factories, land, or machines and they make money because they own these things. Employees don’t own any of that, so they have to sell their labor to the owners to get paid. For example, a business owner who runs a factory is an owner, while the people working on the factory floor are employees. The owner controls the factory, but the workers sell their time and effort to get a paycheck.
2. The quote by Adam Smith is basically saying that labor is the real source of all value. What that means is, when people work whether it’s making stuff, farming, or building they’re the ones creating the wealth. Without labor, things wouldn’t have value because it’s the effort and work put into something that gives it worth. So, it’s highlighting how important workers are, since their labor is what actually produces everything we depend on.
3. I think the main argument in Reading 4.4 that class isn’t just another identity really makes sense when you look closely. Unlike things like race or gender, which are about who you are, class is more about your relationship to the economy like whether you own stuff that makes money or if you have to sell your labor to survive. So, class isn’t just a label or a group you belong to. It’s a whole system that shapes your life, what choices you have, and what kind of power you hold. The reading makes a strong point that because capitalists control resources and workers depend on them, class creates a unique kind of power dynamic one that’s way more than just an identity like race or gender. In other words, while class can shape identity, it’s primarily about real material conditions and relationships, which means fighting class inequality means challenging those systems not just recognizing it as a social category.
4. The reading’s argument that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency” means that workers and capitalists rely directly on each other in a way that deeply connects their lives. Workers depend on capitalists because they need a job to earn money and survive. At the same time, capitalists depend on workers to produce goods or services so they can make profits. This is different from other social categories like race or gender, where your identity doesn’t depend on a specific person or group you interact with daily. But with class, your survival or success depends on that ongoing relationship if the capitalist stops hiring or the workers stop working, the whole system is affected. An example could be a factory worker who depends on the factory owner for a paycheck, while the owner depends on the worker to keep the machines running and make products. Neither can really thrive without the other, but their interests often clash because the owner wants to pay as little as possible, and the worker wants better pay and conditions. So this dependency is close and direct it’s like a two way connection that shapes both sides actions and power.

1. To me, the means of production are the tools, machines, buildings, and resources used to make goods and services. They’re basically everything needed to produce something, except the people doing the work. For example, a factory and the machines inside it are part of the means of production. Labor, on the other hand, is the human effort physical or mental that goes into producing goods or services. It’s the work people do using the means of production. For example, a factory worker assembling products on a production line is providing labor.
2. Value, according to the video, is about how much labor is needed to make something. What gives something its value is the amount of socially necessary work that goes into producing it not just how much people want it or how much it costs. So, something is valuable because it takes time and effort from workers to create it. In other words, value comes from the work behind the product, not just from its price or usefulness.
3. Labor and value are tied together because value basically comes from the work that goes into making something. If no one put in the effort to create a product, it wouldn’t really have any value. So, the value of something depends on how much work or labor is needed to make it. The more work that’s required, the more valuable it usually is. Labor is what gives things their value.
4. Labor is the actual work someone does like the physical or mental effort they put in while making something. Labor power, on the other hand, is the ability or capacity to work. So, labor power is what a worker sells to an employer their time and skills but labor is what happens when they actually use that power to get the job done. It’s like the difference between having a car and actually driving it. The employer buys your ability to work, but you’re the one who actually does the work.
5. Surplus value is basically the extra value workers create beyond what they’re paid for. When a worker gets paid a wage, that wage covers only part of the value they produce the rest, the surplus, goes to the owner as profit. For example, imagine a factory worker gets paid $100 a day but produces goods worth $200. That extra $100 is the surplus value that the owner keeps as profit. This is a key part of how capitalism works and why class conflict happens.

M-C-M’ is a way to understand how capitalists keep and grow their wealth. It starts with M, which stands for money. A capitalist uses this money to buy C, which means commodities things like raw materials, labor power, or tools needed to produce goods. Then, after producing and selling the new product, the capitalist ends up with M, more money than they started with.

The key point is that M is greater than M, meaning the capitalist doesn’t just get their original money back they make a profit. This profit comes from the value added by workers labor, especially the unpaid part called surplus value. So, capitalists keep their wealth growing because they invest money to produce goods and sell them for even more money. For example, imagine a capitalist has $1,000 (M). They use that money to buy materials and pay workers (C) to produce shoes. After selling the shoes, they make $1,200 (M’). The extra $200 is profit, which came from the workers labor adding value beyond what they were paid. This is how capitalists maintain and increase their wealth.

1. Faction reminds me of social classes, since both involve groups with shared interests that can conflict with others
2. According to Federalist #10, the source of wealth or private property comes from the different “faculties” or abilities of people. Faculties here means things like talents, skills, and personal qualities that let some people earn or acquire more property than others. This difference in abilities is why some people end up owning property and wealth, while others don’t and stay poor. So, the authors saw class differences as natural because people have different capacities to gain wealth.
3. Honestly, I think it makes sense to some extent, people do have different skills and opportunities that affect their wealth. But it feels a bit too simple, like it doesn’t fully consider how systems, luck, or unfair barriers like discrimination or inherited wealth also play a huge role in who ends up rich or poor. So, I’d say it’s partly true, but there’s more to the story.
4. The core mission of the US government, according to the reading, is the protection of these faculties meaning the different abilities people have to acquire property. Basically, the government’s first job is to protect people’s rights to own property and their wealth. That might surprise some people today because we often think the government’s main job is to take care of everyone’s needs more equally like focusing on healthcare, education, or social programs. But back then, the focus was really on protecting property and keeping order, especially for those who owned wealth.
5. I’m not surprised that Federalist #10 favors a republican government over a pure democracy. Madison was worried that in a pure democracy, the majority could act in their own interest and hurt others, especially property owners. Since society was divided by class, with wealthy property owners and poorer groups like debtors, a pure democracy might let the larger, poorer group pass laws that harm the richer minority. So, a representative government was seen as a way to control these factions and protect property rights, keeping order between the social classes.