Question #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”). Try to understand what this legal terms means, as it is key to the court’s decision).

In the Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court decided that the women who brought the lawsuit. Could not move forward as a class action. The Court stated that the plaintiffs did not prove commonality (Hester). In order words, it meant that everyone in the group must share a common legal/question. To be able to sue as a group, they would need to show that Wal-Mart had one clear policy that discriminated against all women in the same way. Additionally, the Court argued that Wal‑Mart allowed individual store managers to make their own decisions about pay and promotions. There was no single company‑wide policy that could link all the women’s experiences together (Hester). Which means the women would have to find a company-wide policy, and if not, then the court’s ruling would only impact the single Walmart location. Even though the women presented statistical and consistent evidence of discrimination, the Court said this was not enough to show a common cause. By rejecting commonality, the Court blocked the class-action lawsuit and made it much harder for workers, especially women, to challenge widespread discrimination in large companies (Hester).

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

The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment. Makes it unlawful for the government to force or promote any religion. It was intended with the purpose of keeping government and religion separate, so no one is pressured to follow a certain faith. The Lemon Test, created in Lemon v. Kurtzman, helps the Court decide if a law violates this clause. A law must have a non‑religious purpose. Must not help or hurt religion, and must avoid too much involvement between government and religious groups (OpenStax).

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

The act of burning the U.S. flag is protected by the First Amendment. In the Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson, it was ruled that flag burning is a form of symbolic speech (OpenStax). Even though socially, many people find it offensive or disrespectful to burn the flag. The Court said the government cannot punish someone just because their message is unpopular. Since the act was a political expression, it was protected by free speech rights (OpenStax).

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

When someone says “I’m taking the Fifth,” they are using their Fifth Amendment right. They are avoiding the situation of self‑incrimination (OpenStax). An individual using the Fifth Amendment means they do not have to answer questions. Or, have to testify if their words could be used against them in a criminal case. It protects people from being forced to say something that might get them in trouble. But it also protects them from saying something unnecessary. Someone exercising their Fifth Amendment doesn’t mean they are guilty.

Question #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 argues that the “War on Terror” is different because it lacks a clear enemy. Nor did it have a precise purpose or meaning. The United States claimed that throughout the war, they were combating terrorism, which resulted in a global conflict and no definitive results. However, the “War on Terror” did allow. And gave the government a situation to justify their expansion of surveillance and emergency controls (The Guardian).

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

“Roving wiretaps” in the Patriot Act may violate the Fourth Amendment. This states that a warrant must be procured before initiating a search. However, these wiretaps allow surveillance to follow someone across devices. Without identifying the exact phone or computer, which weakens the amendment’s “particularity” requirement (NPR). The author also says this widens the ways an individual can be surveillanced. Which and discourage and effect citizen able to feel that they have free speech and affects the First Amendment (NPR).

Question #3: What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

“Sneak and Peek” is a warrant that allows police to enter a home, search it, and delay notifying the owner. This conflicting situation clashes with the conditions of the Fourth Amendment. This requires that the police provide a timely notice of a search. However, the delayed notice, it prevents people from challenging the search or protecting their property. As the author stated, the article raised questions about due‑process and fairness (OpenStax).

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

In a federal system, citizens interact with different levels of government, such as national, state, and local, each with its own authority and responsibilities. This setup gives people many ways to participate in government and influence public policy. For example, they can vote in local elections, attend state legislative meetings, or contact national representatives about federal issues. Since authority is divided, citizens may encounter different laws, services, and chances to get involved depending on which level of government they deal with. For example, a person might follow local traffic laws, pay state taxes, and benefit from national defense or social security programs, all managed by separate authorities.

In a confederation, citizens predominantly engage with their state governments because the central government is purposely kept weak. Its main job is to coordinate policies among member states, but it does not have the power to govern individuals directly. As a result, most laws, services, and opportunities for participation are determined by state governments, and the central authority cannot enforce rules or offer programs across the whole country.

In a unitary system, citizens interact mostly with the national government, since local governments have only the powers the central government chooses to grant them. As a result, the majority of political participation and influence happens at the national level, and local policies or services can change depending on decisions made by the central authority. But it may also limit citizens’ direct access to and influence over local decision-making.

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

The system of division of power means that governmental authority is split between different levels. Such as national and state. With the purpose of division, control and management, there’s no single level of authority, government or power that controls everything. In the U.S., the Constitution assigns specific powers to the federal government, others to the states, and some powers are shared. In hopes that this structure was made with the goal of preventing the abuse of power and enables states to address local concerns while the federal government manages national issues.

Question #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.

A prime example of an instance that the federal government shaped the actions of a state and/or a local government was during the COVID‑19 pandemic. The federal government shaped New York State and local actions through funding, guidance, and regulations. Federal relief bills such as, the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan. Bills that sent billions of dollars to New York, impacting how the state supported hospitals, schools, and economic recovery programs. Federal agencies like the CDC issued health guidelines that New York used when creating mask rules, business restrictions, and school policies. Federal decisions about vaccine distribution and emergency declarations also affected how quickly New York could respond and what resources were available to local governments.

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

The concept of a faction is very similar to what we previously discussed as interest groups. Both involve groups of people united by a shared interest or passion within the topics of economic, political, or social. These factions and interest groups often seek to exert influence over government policies and decisions in order to promote their specific agendas. This influence can be displayed in different forms, such as lobbying, campaigning, or influencing public opinion. Madison expressed concern that factions could pursue their own interests at the expense of the common good. Which is a perspective that can be found in modern discussions and events regarding powerful interest groups influencing and controlling modern societies’ working classes’ oppression.

Question #2: According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), 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 (thus remaining poor)?

In Federalist No. 10, Madison argues compellingly that the source of wealth is fundamentally rooted in private property, which arises from the diverse abilities, talents, and opportunities that individuals possess. He explains that, due to inherent differences among people, such as skills, resources, and ambitions, they will inevitably acquire varying amounts of property over time. This inherent inequality in both ability and ambition serves to explain why some individuals are able to accumulate significant wealth while others remain without it. In other words, economic inequality is a natural and unavoidable result of the diverse human differences that exist within society.

Question #3: Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?

I partly agree and partly disagree with Madison’s explanation of wealth and poverty. While individual talent and effort do matter, modern society shows that structural factors matter. Such as access to education, discrimination, and inherited wealth. These factors play a major role in shaping economic outcomes. Poverty is not always the result of personal shortcomings, and wealth is not always the result of superior ability. Many people face barriers that Madison did not fully consider. In reality, many wealthy individuals gain and maintain their status by limiting opportunities for others or by benefiting from the labor of those with fewer resources. Some even use lobbying, political influence, and financial power to preserve systems that keep them wealthy while making it harder for others to advance. I believe change is needed on both sides. For those who exploit others through money and influence, and for those who use their wealth to create additional barriers. No one needs to accumulate limitless wealth or horde that much wealth and power at the expense of others, and society should work to prevent such extreme inequality.

Question #1: Based on the arguments presented in Readings 6.1 and 6.2, which social class wrote the Constitution, and which class was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process? In your comment, make sure you clearly specify the difference between the two classes by giving examples from the readings.

According to Charles A. Beard’s “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States” and Michael Parenti’s “Democracy for the Few, the Constitution was written mainly by members of the wealthy, propertied upper class, individuals who were white men who owned land, slaves, commercial businesses, or government bonds. Beard argues that many of the Framers had direct economic interests in creating a strong national government that would protect property and stabilize the economy. In contrast, the working class, small farmers, laborers, women, enslaved people, and the poor were excluded from the process entirely. Parenti emphasizes that these groups had no political voice and were often the ones suffering under debt, taxation, and economic inequality. The Constitution was therefore shaped by the interests of the elite, while the majority of the population had no say in its creation.

Question #2: Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain.

The class structure of early U.S. society is similar in some ways but also very different from today, or in other words, modern-day U.S. Like now, there were clear divisions between wealthy elites and ordinary working people. The gap between the classes is even more rigid in comparison to the 1780s. But it’s often overlooked because the visible signs of the huge wealth disparately is directly there. Political power was almost entirely in the hands of wealthy white men, while most people. Especially women, enslaved people, Indigenous people, and the poor had no political rights at all. Today, although inequality still exists, more groups have legal rights and political participation. Still, the influence of wealth on politics remains a major issue, showing that some class dynamics have persisted. And the very present inequality is there, to some marginalized groups more activity affects or highlights, while others are silent from the media’s point of view, but are being oppressed.

Question #3: Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy? Hint: think about how to answer this question by discussing it in terms of social classes.

The Framers feared democracy largely because of class conflict. Beard and Parenti both explain that the wealthy elites who wrote the Constitution worried that if ordinary people, especially poor farmers and laborers, gained political power, they might vote to reduce debts, tax the rich, or redistribute property. Events like Shays’ Rebellion intensified these fears, showing elites that the lower classes were angry and capable of organizing. To protect their economic interests, the Framers designed a system that limited direct democracy and placed most power in the hands of representatives, who were expected to come from the “right” social class. Their fear of democracy was ultimately a fear of losing control over their wealth and status.

Question #1: Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p. 29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why?

The top one percent of Americans, the wealthy class of individuals who own more money than the entire working class, the lower half of the country put together. It is not just that some people have money, but that a very small group of Americans has more money and things than millions of families combined. They have more influence, power, money, generational wealth, and control than the millions of working Americans that invert-y gave them that position. As the working class struggles to survive, they are suppressed by barriers, limitations, and challenges imposed by those who benefit from here suffering.

This really stands out because it makes the problem of people not having the same amount of money feel real and simple to understand. The wealth of Americans is an issue. And, how the wealth of America is so clearly divided unequally.

Question #2: What could be some of the implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities? Do you see this dynamic getting played out in everyday life in our society? How so? Example?

Living in a society with a substantial wealth gap that has driven inequalities between the wealthy and working class, shaping their daily life in apparent ways. When a small segment of the population controls the majority of resources, disparities in housing, healthcare, education, and basic stability become unavoidable. This dynamic shapes everyday life in direct and visible ways.
For example, in many cities you’ll find luxury apartments under construction. Near or in proximity to communities and neighborhoods where people are struggling to afford rent.
The differences in healthcare serve as another example. Some individuals can afford private physicians and expedited appointments, while others experience extended waiting periods for basic care. These disparities influence opportunities and stress levels. Frequently resulting in frustration or perceptions of systemic inequity. Over time, such conditions may foster social tension. As the working class is the driving force of economic growth, yet as a whole, they own less of the wealth and power than the wealthy class has. As they struggle to make a living and work hard, the wealthy earn more as the working class struggles and often are a part of the issue. Of enabling barriers that prevent the working class from having better conditions and situations. So that they, the wealthy class, can maintain their power, wealth, and status.

Question #1: As we learned thus far, the capitalist class consists of people who own wealth, as well as the means of production in American society. An important question in understanding how this class works is to ask: how does a capitalist remain wealthy? The answer to this question depends largely on understanding the diagram M-C-M’. So, let’s practice by explaining what happens in this diagram in our own words (but basing our ideas on Reading 5.1). Respond to the following question: Explain M-C-M’ to show how capitalists maintain and increase their wealth.

The capitalist class, which refers to the wealthier and more privileged segment of society, is able to maintain and expand its wealth through a repeating economic cycle that Karl Marx famously described as “M–C–M’.” In this process, the capitalist starts with money “M” and uses it to purchase commodities “C”, with a particular focus on labor power. The worker’s capacity to work and produce goods or services. This labor power is unique among commodities because it is the source of new value in the production process. Workers, who often have little choice but to sell their labor in order to survive, end up performing work that creates more value than what they receive in wages. This difference between the value produced and the wages paid is known as surplus value, a concept central to Marxist economics. After production, capitalists sell the finished goods for a sum greater than their original investment, resulting in “M” or “money plus more.” The surplus value generated by workers is thus appropriated by the capitalist as profit, allowing the cycle to repeat.

By continuously reinvesting profits into new rounds of production, buying more labor, expanding operations, and seeking new markets. The capitalist class is able to perpetuate and often increase its wealth and power. This system creates a dynamic where capitalists stay wealthy, not through personal effort alone. But, by extracting value from the labor of the working class. Meanwhile, workers remain dependent on wages for their survival, reinforcing a relationship of economic dependence and inequality that is difficult to break. Over time, this cycle contributes to the persistence and discrepancies between classes and their division. The capitalist class is reducing economic and social advantages. Whereas the majority of the working class, workers find themselves with progressively worse and limited opportunities. Marx’s analysis thus highlights the inherent conflict and exploitation at the heart of capitalist societies.

The accumulation of wealth by a few is made possible only through the ongoing labor and exploitation of the many. Capitalists grow richer not because they personally create value, but because workers continuously produce more value than they are paid for. This unpaid portion of labor . Surplus value is what allows wealth to be focused at the top. As long as workers must sell their labor power to survive, and capitalists own the means of production, this cycle repeats itself, enabling a small group to accumulate increasing amounts of wealth while the majority effects it.

Question #1: What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.

In Democracy for the Few, Parenti highlights that the key distinction between owners and workers lies in the contrast between those who possess control over the means of production and those who are compelled to offer their labor to sustain themselves. Owners, Corporate leaders, significant Shareholders, and investors. These people of power have control and influence to manage factories, real estate, technology, and financial resources. Since they possess the resources that society depends on, they also dictate decisions regarding wages, working conditions, and production. In contrast, these resources are not owned by employees. They are required to earn wages, placing them in a reliant situation. For instance, the proprietor of Amazon (Jeff Bezos) symbolizes the “owner” class, whereas warehouse staff who pack and deliver items symbolize the “employee” class. Parenti argues that this imbalanced relationship affords owners significantly greater influence in shaping society, politics, and the economy.

Question #2: How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?

Adam Smith shows that laborers need to work daily merely to exist. Whereas the wealthy, or in other words, owners, can live well without any labor. or working for a means of living. Smith highlights that labor constitutes the source of value, but workers remain the most susceptible group in society since they rely on wages for their existence. If they stop working, they won’t be able to survive. Owners, on the other hand, can cease working completely and still benefit from the efforts of others. The statement highlights the basic imbalance inherent in capitalism. Employees rely on employers significantly more than employers rely on any single employee. This causes labor to be a reliant and frequently exploited group.

Question #3: What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?

Paul Heideman maintains that class should not be considered an identity similar to race, gender, or sexuality. Rather, class is a structural connection or an individual’s monetary status determined by their standing in the economic system. You cannot “define” your way into or out of a class since class is based on your connection to labor and property. For instance, an individual might perceive themselves as middle class, yet if they rely on earnings and retain minimal influence over their job environment, they are inherently part of the working class. I believe the argument is valid because class pertains not to personal emotions or cultural characteristics, but rather to material factors like income, job stability, and control over work. Heideman argues that viewing class as an identity diverts attention from the true problem. The imbalanced power dynamics between employers and employees.

Question #3: How do you understand the argument Reading 4.4. makes when stating that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency”? What is this close form of dependency, and can you think of an example?

Heideman asserts that class systems stem from a “tight reliance” where workers depend on employers for income, while employers rely on workers for profit. This relationship is intimate but uneven, as employers wield more power. Employees can’t easily leave due to financial necessities, unlike employers who can replace workers or automate. For fast-food employees, job loss directly affects their ability to pay rent and buy food, highlighting that class is a structural connection rather than an individual identity.

Furthermore, this “tight form of dependency” shows that employees and employers are connected in a relationship where both parties require one another, though not in equal measures. Employees rely on employers for pay, health coverage, and essential needs, whereas employers count on employees to sustain their operations. The dependency is “near” since it impacts daily life. Like housing, nourishment, expenses, and security all depend on employment. However, it is also imbalanced since employers possess greater choices and authority. In retail environments, employees depend on their positions to cover monthly bills, yet the business can swiftly bring in new staff or reduce hours if necessary. This signifies that class depends on a structural relationship of dependence, rather than on individual identity or one’s feelings regarding their class status (Heideman).

Question #1: What is a Repressive State Apparatus? Why does Althusser call it “repressive”? Can we explain his choice of words here. Give an example.

A Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) is any organization that maintains social order through force or the threat of force. Althusser calls it “repressive” because these institutions work mainly by punishing, arresting, imprisoning, or physically controlling people. RSAs include the police, the military, the courts, and the prison system. Their power is direct and visible as they enforce laws, stop protests, and punish those who break rules. By Althusser using the word “repressive” it highlights the feeling of the individuals who have to endure RSA’s physical force to keep the existing social and economic system in place. For example, when police break up a strike or arrest workers who refuse to leave a picket line, they are acting as a Repressive State Apparatus because they use force to protect the interests of the state and the economic system.

Question #2: Let’s do the same for the Ideological State Apparatuses. What are they, how do they seem to work?

A Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) refers to any entity that upholds social control via coercion or the menace of coercion. Althusser describes it as “repressive” since these institutions primarily function by punishing, detaining, incarcerating, or physically overpowering individuals. RSAs consist of the police, the armed forces, the judiciary, and the correctional system. Their authority is apparent and straightforward as they implement laws, break up/prevent protests, and penalize rule violators. Althusser’s use of the term “repressive” emphasizes the experience of individuals who must withstand the physical power of the RSA to maintain the current social and economic order. For instance, when law enforcement disperses a strike or detains workers who won’t abandon a picket line, they function as a Repressive State Apparatus by employing force to safeguard the state’s interests and the economic structure.

Question #3: Ideological State Apparatuses different from each other? What is the difference between the two?

The primary differences between RSAs and ISAs are in how each organization maintains itself and its methods of preserving social order. Repressive State Apparatuses (RSA) work mainly via force, whereas Ideological State Apparatuses function through concepts. RSAs are directly managed and overseen by the government. Such as law enforcement, judiciary, correctional facilities, and armed forces. Their strength is obvious and discernible. ISAs are oftentimes private or semi-private entities. For example, schools, churches, media, families, etc. They influence people’s convictions in a way that leads them to embrace the system without requiring intimidation or using forceful approaches. A further difference is that RSAs primarily intervene when individuals defy or violate rules, whereas ISAs function constantly, influencing people’s day-to-day thoughts and actions. In summary, RSAs govern physical entities, whereas ISAs influence a person’s ideology.

Question #4: Post an example of ideology. This could be a piece of writing, an image, video, pdf document, visual art, or music, clip from a movie.

This poster is a classic example of an Ideological State Apparatus because it uses national pride and emotional appeal instead of physical force. To influence and encourage people to join the USA military. This image along with the figure of “Uncle Sam” has become a symbol of duty, USA military, patriotism, and citizenship.