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).

The supreme court ruled that the Wal-Mart female workers could not file a class-action lawsuit because they found that a group of women were not a valid class, as they argued despite a common problem there was not a commonality in solution where the decision would equally help all members of the group. 

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

The court system allows for there to be multiple different levels/areas of courts to refer to if someone is not satisfied with their individual outcome. They also can examine your personal situation. The government structure, however, often creates orders that may not be disputable in another area, as well as the fact that orders and laws are created to apply to the entire people and not just one individual’s situation. For example, someone in Florida charged with marijuana use can refer to the Miami court which may see it as decriminalized. A general ban from congress does not have other options to refer to.

2. Think about how federal judges get to become judges – unlike Presidents, Mayors and members of Congress (and other legislatures), they are not elected, but rather appointed. Many Americans have thus called the federal courts system, 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? (HINT: think about our discussion of “Federalist #10”, and which social class plays a leading role in our government system.

I do agree that a judge is only one person, but a jury is much more aligned with democracy as it involves a group of people that vote and thus I think cases should be tried by a jury. Also, a jury is selected from every day American citizens, whereas a judge has certain qualifications to meet. Federalist 10 talks about how people are allowed to have different opinions and drives in this country, and a jury represents a diversity of occupation and opinion whereas a judge is a particular job and way of thinking.

9.1

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

The establishment clause states that the government has no right to be involved in religion, much created due to slight variations in religion amongst Americans at the time of the creation of the Constitution. It did limit Jews in certain states, but the clause became more relevant when many Irish  and other Europeans brought in Catholicism and other religions, creating conflict and discourse about to what degree the clause affects people, including public schools. Today, it also emphasizes no promotion of a religion from the government in order to avoid religious favoritism. The “Lemon Test” came about with the supreme court case Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971 that helped decide if any government law, executive order or other action supporting an aspect of religion is legal/constitutional. The Lemon Test has three elements that must be approved: the separation between government and religion is clearcut and does not require an elaborate follow up from the government, it cannot help or hurt a religion but must be neutral, and it has to hold a non-religious purpose.

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

Burning the US flag for a long period of American history was prohibited, however Gregory Lee Johnson brought about change in this prohibition when he burned an American flag in Texas, most likely in protesting war, leading to the court case Texas v. Johnson in 1989 where it was concluded that burning the American flag was “symbolic speech” and thus the First Amendment and its protection of free speech allowed for flag burning, deeming it Constitutional. Congress attempted to fight this with the Flag Protection Act of 1990, but the act was rejected in that it was unconstitutional.

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

“I’m taking the Fifth” means that someone is exercising the fifth amendment of their right to remain silent, particularly in a court of law and/or criminal setting. It also means that if someone decides not to testify this cannot be used against them in a legal decision. This became more widely focused on in the nation after the Supreme court case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 where it was decided someone had to be given these rights before the police took them into custody, and thus known now as “Miranda rights.” The Patriot Act made this more complicated, as it involves terrorism. The fifth amendment also states that serious crimes are only allowed prosecution if an official accusation is made, and applies more to a grand jury which are more present in felonies, and thus is not always applied in less serious crimes. It also does not apply to states and thus states will first hold a judge before conducting an entire grand jury. The amendment also does not apply to those in the armed forces accused of a crime. The fifth amendment also prevents the government/court from conducting multiple prosecutions for the same act, which is referred to as “double jeopardy” however the law can prosecute you a second time if it is in another body of law (the federal government may intervene if a federal law is violated). 

9.2

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?

Williams states that what’s new about the war on terror is that it’s not just a war against people but a war involving purely the mind and emotion, which in turn then makes the enemy anyone that installs fear in other people. She then remarks how it leads to less of a discussion surrounding facts and more so with fear. She also says what’s different from traditional wars is that basic constitutional rights are stripped from people not even involved in the conflict.

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?

Within the Patriot Act, roving wiretaps is allowing one wiretap (listening devices of someone’s personal device) to apply to multiple devices at the same time, which extinguishes the need for isolated court authorizations for a suspect’s phone and computer. This seems to violate the Bill of Rights in that it contradicts the fourth amendment, which protects someone’s right to privacy, as you would need a warrant and probable clause before invading someone’s home with searches and seizures. Listening to multiple devices is invading someone’s privacy on a digital level, as instead of someone’s personal home, it’s someone’s personal device.  The Patriot Act argues that someone forfeits their right to privacy if acting to terrorize the public, regardless of the fourth amendment.

3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?

Sneak and Peek Warrants are when someone conducts a search and seizure without notifying the person they are acting upon. The warrant within the Patriot Act goes against the same amendment, the fourth amendment, in that it is intended to provide someone with privacy and if someone is not notified, they are not provided protection over private property. People argue that any crime could be deemed an act of terrorism under the Patriot Act and thus it could contradict the Fourth Amendment for anyone.

6.1

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.

The social class that wrote the constitution was exclusively the upper class, and even with voting you needed to be a white man who owned land-no more than 10 percent of the population. An example would be that of what James Madison said when he wrote in Federalist 10 how “the most common and durable source of faction has been the various and unequal distribution of property [that is, wealth].” Here by stating its “durable” he claims that the inequality is what would help the nation sustain.

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

This is not a yes or no question. I would break it into two parts and say that economically it is similar to such a large income inequality, however in terms of social status there has been a slight difference in that slavery no longer exists and thus all humans are (supposed) to have equal rights, even those that are poor. However, this system is in many ways rigged, with many police officers showing prejudice and people wrongfully sent to jail and stripped of their rights. Still, progress, whereas I would say economically we still have a major wealth gap. 

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.

They were afraid of Democracy because they did not trust the common people, and felt that they swayed too much with common political movements. Alexander Hamilton noted this when he stated that “the people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.”

6.2

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

Personally, faction reminds me the most of the workers when we discussed the relationship between owners and workers, as the founding fathers, a wealthier class, expressed it to represent the general community, in a way that seemed below them or that they owned them. Owners held this power over workers with elements such as surplus value. To me, the founding fathers were the owners and the factions represent the workers.

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)? This is a key question, because it shows how the authors of the Constitution thought about the difference between different classes of Americans! HINT: focus on the passage that begins: “The diversity in the faculties (WHAT DOES FACULTIES mean or refer to?) of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not les….”

I think that with his words before this of  “As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves” he/the authors thought that a man’s faculty was values and interests dictated where and what he pursued and what land or assets he would seek out, and thus diversity in the faculties means that different men have different interests that lead them to what property, or no property, they own. Thus, I think they are saying that men are responsible for the social class they belong to.

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

In my opinion, tying people to social class based upon their interests and pursuits is discrediting the biased and nepotistic aspects of socioeconomic inequality. Many, some would argue most, of those not owning land or owning only small farm land were born into families in these positions and did not have the time, money or status to pursue another option. Furthermore, there were the biased aspects such as men who were Irish or Scottish being written off for their ethnicity, and of course those that were Black having no status due to the color of their skin. Thus, Madison and the Federalists do not take accountability for the systemic aspects that lead to a lack of social mobility.

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.

The core mission of the US government was to create a society that was attached to popular opinion, but to keep the social class system (factions) intact with some at the top and many at the bottom. James Madison writes “To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction and at the same time preserve the spirit and form of popular government is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.” He found that disrupting factions would hurt the people, but I think we can infer he also worried it would hurt himself in the upper class. No, it does not surprise me, as I do not think that at that time they were striving for an equal society, but rather a society closer to equality than the monarchy that existed in England. It also does not surprise me considering the founding fathers enjoyed the privileges of their social status, and would not want to create a government that could take that away from them. Today, I think there is more discourse and nuance about this, with the terms of equity and equality, however due to the power and influence the rich have over our senators and representatives I would say the factions are still very much alive.

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? Hint: think about how this question connects with the social classes…

Similar to my answer above, I think that I am not surprised as I knew that two things were true: the founding fathers did not fully trust the American people and found that a popular opinion was not necessarily a correct opinion, and that they knew giving too much power to the people could risk them losing their higher social status when the upper class was only a fraction of the population. (Most of them were rich and of higher status, and James Madison was certainly of wealth and land owning.) Furthermore, the founding fathers made the representative government still powered by those of wealth and status considering the only ones who could vote for the representatives were white men that owned land-keeping the interests in that of the social class they were in.

7.1

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

This is a blanket term, but in the context of what we are reading it is the difference between power depending upon only the central government (one government that applies to the entire nation regardless of the different local areas) power depending upon only local governments (each region of the nation holds separate legislation over their domain) and where power is split between the central government and the local government.

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

In a confederation system, the government is controlled by a synthesis of the different local governments, and thus people have the most power. In a federal system, people have some, but less power as the local government shares power with the central government. On the other end, in a unitary system the power is directed only to the central government and thus the needs that vary depending on the location of the citizens may be disregarded, so perhaps citizens have the least power.

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.

Governor Andrew Cuomo stated that he felt the federal government had failed to act on COVID despite the actions of the people, and so when the delta variant emerged he exercised local power in creating a statewide New York mandate for people to take vaccines that worked in any aspect of healthcare in an attempt to prevent the spread. Thus, at times neglect from the federal government may push local governments to take more charge in shaping the lives of the citizens living within their region. This is seen on another major scale when the federal legalization of abortions in Roe v. Wade was lifted and it was left up to the states, as we now have 19 states that now ban or restrict abortions.