1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Walmart, thereby putting an end to the largest civil rights class-action lawsuit in history. In doing so, it prevented 1.5 million women from filing a joint lawsuit. To justify this decision, the Supreme Court relied on the legal requirement of “commonality.” Walmart did not have an official policy that discriminated against women across all its stores. Instead, its policies allow managers at each store the freedom to use their own discretion when deciding on wages and promotions. In other words, because there are so many stores and independent managers, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no single common cause for the discrimination. While a woman in one store might have faced discrimination from her manager, that did not mean that a manager at another store was discriminating against another woman. Basically, with 1.5 million women involved, it was impossible for all of them to have been treated the same, since each store manager has different criteria. Because there were so many different cases, the class-action lawsuit was dismissed because there was no single narrative linking all the cases together.

1. The court system has lifetime appointments, and judges’ salaries cannot be reduced, in other words, they cannot lose their jobs in future elections. The situation is different for the elected branches of government, as their members must leave office periodically to make way for new elections. In this way, citizens can choose to re-elect the incumbent or elect someone new to office. With this protection, the court system can make decisions based on the law and the Constitution in a fair and impartial manner.
   Furthermore, in the courts, the court system can analyze specific cases and ensure that laws or government actions do not infringe upon citizens’ freedoms. Also, based on the principle of stare decisis, the courts provide more predictable and lasting protection for citizens’ rights. On the other hand, the branches of government are constantly changing depending on which party wins the elections, which can affect citizens’ rights. And that is where the court system steps in to protect citizens’ rights.
   The case of Texas v. Johnson illustrates how the court system protects citizens’ rights. When Johnson burned the flag during a protest near Dallas, the Texas legislature and elected officials upheld laws prohibiting the desecration of the flag and sought to punish him. However, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, as the justices determined that burning a flag was protected by the First Amendment because it was a form of symbolic expression.
   
2. I agree that the Supreme Court is an anti-democratic institution within our government. Since judges are not elected by the people, this means that a group of people whom no one has elected can review laws or government actions and strike them down if they violate the Constitution.
   The reason for appointing federal judges in this manner is to check the majority. In Federalist No. 10, Madison argues that he did not want a direct democracy, since he believed that a majority with common interests, if united, would be able to directly harm the remaining minority. Through the method of appointment and lifetime tenure, they ensured that the court system would be able to check the electoral majority, meaning that its function is to protect the Constitution. To be more specific, this system was designed to check the majority, that is, the working class or those without property, since, as the majority, they could gain control of Congress through elections and pass laws that would benefit them but harm the propertied elite.

1. I understand the Establishment Clause as a constitutional mechanism to prevent wars and conflicts, since in Europe several wars and conflicts were related to the Church. That is why this first part of the First Amendment prohibits the United States government from establishing a church, as well as from favoring one religion over another or placing religions above non-religion. On the other hand, the Lemon Test helps determine whether a law or government action related to religious practices is constitutional. This is achieved by ensuring that three criteria are met: 1. The law or action must not result in excessive government interference in religious affairs; 2. The law or action must be neutral; 3. The law or action must have a non-religious justification or purpose.
   
2. Burning the U.S. flag is protected by the First Amendment, as it is viewed as a valid form of expression. In 1984, as part of a protest near Dallas, Texas, Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag and was arrested on charges of desecrating a revered object. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in Johnson’s favor, determining that burning a flag was protected by the First Amendment as a form of symbolic expression. Essentially, burning a flag may be disrespectful to others, but it is still a form of expression. Since a flag can represent the current government, if you oppose that government, burning the flag is the best way to show your disagreement.
   
3. When someone says, “I’m taking the Fifth,” it means they have the right to remain silent and thereby avoid self-incrimination. Suspects and defendants may remain silent while being questioned and also during a trial. They choose to remain silent because the prosecution cannot use that silence as evidence of guilt. In other words, by saying “I’m taking the Fifth,” suspects or defendants prevent authorities from pressuring or threatening them into saying something that could be used against them or into making a direct confession.

1. The war on terrorism, unlike traditional wars between sovereign states, which involve identifiable armies fighting over resources or territory, does not have a clearly defined enemy. In this new type of war, the conflict is not fought over resources or territory against other countries or territories; rather, it is based on the concept of “terror,” which means this war can take place within one’s own territory. Because it occurs within one’s own territory, this war can be used to spy on society through law enforcement agencies or the government itself. Furthermore, while traditional wars involve fighting a specific enemy, in this new type of war based on “terror,” the enemy can be anyone who instills fear in others; and since terrorism will always generate fear in society, this war could continue indefinitely.
   
2. The purpose of “roving wiretaps” is to tap into phones or devices that a suspect may use. Under the Fourth Amendment, in order to wiretap a phone or any device, the government previously had to specify the device and the person to be wiretapped. With the Patriot Act, this changed; now, with the authorization of a single court order, any phone or device that a suspected terrorist might use can be wiretapped, regardless of whether it belongs to them or someone else. This directly violates the Fourth Amendment, since by being able to tap any phone or device used by a terrorism suspect, the government could investigate innocent people who may have lost their phone or lent their phone to the suspect, it could even investigate places that rent computers to the public if the suspect used one of them.
   
3. “Seek and Peek” warrants are search warrants that are issued some time after the search has taken place. In other words, they can secretly search private property without notifying you, and then send you a copy of the search warrant they issued some time later. This didn’t used to happen this way, since in order for someone to search your private property, they first had to obtain a court order authorizing it and immediately notify you that they were going to search your private property. But with the Patriot Act, this changed, as the government is now allowed to secretly search your private property and notify you weeks later. By having this freedom, they violate the Fourth Amendment. Such searches cease to be “reasonable” because, by failing to immediately notify you of a search of private property, the search could be conducted at the wrong address and affect third parties; furthermore, since it is conducted in secret, the property owner will not know if the investigation is excessive or if the search is legally justified.

1. In a federal system, the role of citizens is to elect their representatives, who make up the national and state governments. Since both are independent governments, citizens will experience advantages or disadvantages depending on which state they live in.
   In a confederal system, it is the state governments previously elected by the citizens that decide what powers to delegate to the central government; in other words, their role is to ensure that their representatives maintain their sovereignty and identity in the face of demands from the union.
   In a unitary system, the role of citizens centers on national elections; that is, they focus on electing the central government, which establishes identical rules throughout the country.
   
2. I understand that the separation of powers is a way to prevent government tyranny; in other words, it is a way to prevent a single government from having so much power that it can abuse it. In a federal system, dividing power between the national and state governments prevents any single entity from making unchecked decisions that affect citizens. This is also achieved through the separation of powers within the same level of government; this power is divided into the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. These three branches do not operate independently; on the contrary, each has constitutional tools with which it can check or modify the actions of the others.
   
3. The federal government has a significant influence on the measures adopted by state and local governments. The most influential way is economically; for example, during the pandemic, through federal laws such as the CARES Act, the American Rescue Plan Act, or the CRRSAA Act, New York received approximately more than $26 billion, which helped the state cope with the difficult situation during the COVID-19 pandemic. With those funds, they were able to finance hospitals, purchase medical equipment, distribute vaccines, and reopen public schools. This means that without federal government assistance, the New York government would not have been able to meet all the needs of its citizens during those difficult times.

1. The social class that wrote the Constitution was a wealthy and powerful minority, these were people who owned both movable and immovable property. These individuals were investors, lenders, and merchants. They all sought to create a central government that would favor them, one in which they would have the power to collect taxes, protect foreign trade, compel people to pay their debts, and block local laws that favored debtors.
   For example, the wealthy men who took advantage of the crisis to buy soldiers’ devalued bonds at ridiculously low prices were able, through Article VI, to collect on those bonds at their full value, at the expense of public taxes.
   The social class that was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process consisted of women, people of African descent, Native Americans, as well as farmers and day laborers who had gone into debt at high interest rates to cultivate their land or pay rent. However, in the case of this class, exclusion was also due to economic factors. To be eligible to vote or run for office, one had to own sufficient land or property, which also excluded poor whites. Due to debt and high taxes, this class demanded relief laws, such as those delaying the foreclosure of their farms or the printing of devalued paper money to help them pay their debts. But for those who wrote the Constitution, this was not beneficial, as it interfered with their goals of enriching themselves; that is why the excluded class had no voice or vote.
   
2. I would say that the class structure of American society in its early history is both similar to and different from today’s. Unlike in the past, today it doesn’t matter if you’re a woman, or if you don’t own property, or what social class you belong to, everyone has the right to vote. However, the current structure remains similar to that of the past; the wealthy and powerful minority remains the same, it has not grown. And they continue to enjoy the state’s favor in protecting their own interests, since, possessing immense wealth that not even the combined wealth of all other social classes can match, they can shape the laws in their favor, which is equivalent to the control exercised by those who wrote the Constitution in the past.
   
3. To understand why the people who wrote the Constitution feared democracy so much, we must keep two key points in mind. The first key point is that the people who wrote the Constitution were just a minority of the rich and powerful, while the rest of the excluded population made up a majority consisting of women, people of African descent, workers, and the poor. The second key point is that democracy meant direct rule by the majority. That is why they were so afraid of democracy, because it would mean that the majority would change the economic rules in their favor. In other words, their fear stemmed from the fact that the majority, having a voice and a vote, would pass laws for their own benefit that would harm the wealthy and powerful minority.

1. The word “faction” reminds me of social class conflict, since society was divided into two factions: one that owned property and one that did not. Both sought to protect their own interests, but the only ones who were heard and supported were the faction that owned property. The Constitution is a prime example of this, as it sought to protect the interests of the faction that owned property and excluded the faction that did not, since the latter’s interests were detrimental to the other faction.
   
2. According to The Federalist No. 10, the source of wealth lies in people’s faculties, that is, in the aptitudes and skills they possess. And since not everyone possesses the same aptitudes and skills, this determines whether they will become wealthy or remain poor. This factor of inequality in abilities determines why some people come to possess wealth through private property while others do not, since, given the great diversity of faculties that exist among people, their effectiveness in trying to earn money and acquire property will vary.
   
3. I don’t entirely agree with this explanation, since it’s not entirely true that a person’s abilities alone determine whether they are rich or poor. There are other factors that also play a role, such as their economic situation, or the fact that society had already established a structure that favored one social class over another. For example, a person may very well have the ability to work and try to earn money to buy property, but since society already has an established system that puts them at a disadvantage compared to others, that person simply won’t succeed because that system is designed to take advantage of him and benefit the upper class.
   
4. The government’s primary objective is to protect people’s rights and ensure that those who have the means to accumulate wealth and own property are not hindered by the lower classes. I find this surprising because the government does not seek equality or the well-being of citizens; it seeks only private property and individual freedom, which, when put into practice, will inevitably create a social division among different factions, a reality the government accepts. Today, this is different because society expects the government to reduce the economic gap between the rich and the poor and promote equality, that is, to benefit not only the upper class but all classes equally.
   
5. Actually, I’m not surprised that The Federalist #10 isn’t in favor of democracy, since a democracy would mean that the majority would have a say and a vote in government decisions. In other words, if the majority, which consists of women, workers, and the poor were to oppose the interests of the wealthy minority, nothing could stop them, since they far outnumber the wealthy. That is why the author advocates for a republican form of government, since in this system the majority would be represented by a small group of wise and wealthy representatives, who could make decisions that benefit the country’s interests and curb impulsive decisions by the majority; in this way, it would be easier for them to control the different factions.

1. The means of production are the tools, technological devices, resources, facilities, and anything else required to produce a final product. In the case of a factory, employees can use all the means of production at their disposal to manufacture products, but that does not mean they own them; in fact, all those means of production are privately owned. An example could be the Steam platform, since even though video game creators and developers have their own means of production to create a final product, without the Steam platform or any other gaming platform, they cannot publish or upload their video games.
   Labor, on the other hand, is the time and effort that employees devote to the production of goods. Labor is the most important element because it has the power to alter a product’s value; this is achieved because, depending on how much time and effort is required to produce a product, its value will change, potentially resulting in a low or high value. For example, a bakery cannot assign value to the flour and eggs in its store, but by using the flour and eggs to create various types of bread, it can estimate the value of each loaf. Depending on whether it takes more or less time to create a single loaf or different types of bread, the cost can vary.
   
2. Unlike price, which is constantly changing due to various factors such as supply and demand, value is a more stable and reliable way to calculate how much a product will cost; and since value is equivalent to labor, time is what determines the final value. What gives “value” to value is simply human labor, since depending on whether a product requires a longer work time to achieve a final result, or if you need several years of training to be able to work on a product, it will ultimately add more value to the product, but on the other hand, if a factory replaces human labor with machine labor, the result will be that the product’s value decreases, since it took less time than a person would have required to manufacture the product.
   
3. Labor and value are directly related, because labor is what determines value. In other words, unlike raw materials, which already have an established value, the only thing capable of changing the value of things worldwide is labor. For example, you can buy a piece of wood for a set price, but when you work on that piece of wood to create other products, your labor changes the value of what that piece of wood was. Furthermore, depending on the time it takes to finish the new product, you can increase or decrease its previous value.
   
4. I understand that labor power is different from work, because labor power can only be found in people, and when you work on a product, you don’t receive the final value of that product; what you actually receive is the money you were paid to create that product, and your boss pays you at the end of the day or week. But for your labor power to function properly, people must use the money they earn for food, clothing, and a place to sleep, in order to keep it alive and functional. Although in reality, to survive just one day, it’s not necessary to work a full day’s hours, about four hours is enough.
   Work, on the other hand, involves making use of that labor power; in other words, work is an activity in which you use your labor power to produce things during a workday. But the key difference here is that labor power only needs about 4 hours of a workday to remain alive and functional, however, a person does not work just 4 hours, a person works the full workday, and in that way is performing the actual work.
   
5. Surplus value is the extra value generated by a worker while on the job; this extra value is not reflected in the worker’s wages. Instead, it goes to the owners of the means of production, since for them this extra value represents their profit for allowing workers to use their tools, machines, and so on. It is important to understand this concept in our study of social classes because surplus value is the root cause of class division and class struggle. Thanks to surplus value, social classes can be divided not by how much money they earn, but by how they earn that money. It helps reveal a subtle form of exploitation, not necessarily that your boss is being mean to you, but that the structure of the system is designed so that you, as a worker, earn less than what you actually produce, since the extra value you aren’t paid for serves as profit for the business.
   A clear example is the wage you earn in a stuffed animal factory: if, for example, you’re paid $100 a day, but each stuffed animal you make costs $10, and it only takes you 2 or 3 hours to make 10 stuffed animals, which would already cover your daily pay, but you can’t go home, since your boss hired you to work for 8 hours, so you must keep working those remaining hours, generating more product and profit for that factory.

1a) For me, what I understand about ideology is that it can operate in different ways, one of them is that it functions as an invisible mechanism, I mean, you don’t realize when you’re caught up in it, but you are. The reality is that through beliefs, norms, and values, ideology shapes the way we perceive what is or isn’t right in society. Ideology also serves to shape political identities, it acts as a guide. I mean, it provides the foundations and concepts that, depending on your values or priorities, will guide you toward the identity you belong to, you might be a liberal if your value is equality, or a conservative if your priority is individual freedom.   

1b)A clear example is my own experience during my school years. The educational system is often designed to encourage individual competition to be the best by getting good grades. But I never cared whether others got better or worse grades than I did, instead, whenever a classmate asked me for help, I would unconsciously offer it. These actions of mine demonstrate that ideology operates invisibly, since, without knowing it and without any help or obligation from others, I was moving toward a concept where helping others is the right thing to do in society. Today, by choosing to help others rather than compete with them, I laid the groundwork that helped guide me toward a liberal identity.

1c)Ultimately, I understand that ideology works from childhood onward, as in my case, and it’s not just a coincidence. I said earlier that it functions as an invisible mechanism, but I want to clarify that it doesn’t do so without help. As I said, my experience in school isn’t a coincidence, rather, institutions like school are designed for that purpose. Ideology needs them to enter our minds invisibly, and school is perfect for that, since for many years it’s a place where we spend most of our time. And even though they make us believe that a school’s function is to teach subjects like mathematics, the reality is that, invisibly, its true function is to teach discipline, rules of conduct, and ways of relating to others. 

Through this invisible mechanism, society remains stable, since ideology does not force you to accept the norms, rather, through this mechanism, we ourselves voluntarily accept the norms. And thanks to this process of invisible assimilation, we can distinguish between different political identities. People who internalize the concept and structure of competition and merit are more inclined toward individual freedom and conservatism, while those who prioritize empathy and cooperation develop a concept based on equality and are more inclined toward liberalism or progressivism.

2. In conservative ideology, conservatives view and understand freedom as the absence of government involvement. Because the government is so large, they believe this means their individual freedoms are constantly at risk; therefore, they believe that when the government does not intervene and remains small, society would function better, allowing responsibilities to be left in the hands of the private sector and local communities.
In liberal ideology, liberals, on the other hand, view equality as the greatest political virtue; that is, unlike conservatives, they do not see the government as a threat, but rather as a tool that must be protected, since they believe the role of a large government is important because it can solve major structural problems and correct injustices that the free market cannot regulate on its own.

Key differences:
-On the economy: Conservatives believe that the free market creates opportunities for everyone, which is why they advocate for low taxes and reduced government spending. Liberals, on the other hand, do not view the free market as a solution to everyone’s problems; that is why they support government intervention through regulations and a tax system that imposes higher taxes on the wealthy. 
-On social issues: Conservatives defend traditional, patriotic, and religious values. Liberals, on the other hand, place greater importance on civil rights and support the state’s protection of the right to choose.

A good example that supports this is the debate over the environment and large corporations. From a liberal perspective, it is argued that if there is no oversight or regulation of large corporations, they will most likely end up polluting and exploiting resources solely for economic gain. That is why the government has an obligation to intervene strictly through environmental laws and taxes. In this way, they prioritize the well-being of citizens over corporate profits.
On the other hand, from a conservative perspective, it is argued that having so many environmental regulations and high taxes only destabilizes the economy, as it destroys jobs and stifles economic growth. They assert that by allowing private companies and the free market to operate without restrictions, they will help the economy grow and ensure that everyone benefits without the need for the state to interfere with private property.

3. I understand Althusser’s ideology as a system of beliefs and behaviors that we unconsciously internalize to ensure that economic and social systems remain unchanged. Althusser defines two structures that help us understand how behavior is controlled: the repressive apparatuses are institutions that control us through the use of fear, force, and threats; the ideological apparatuses of the state are everyday institutions that, through our desire to be accepted and to belong to a group, shape our minds and our behavior. Thanks to these ideological apparatuses, the government does not feel the need to constantly resort to police force, since we have learned to be obedient and disciplined of our own volition. 

One example is school, since, according to Althusser’s logic, it is the most powerful ideological apparatus, because school is presented to us as a necessary place for personal growth, where you learn to read, write, or do arithmetic. But the reality is different; schools actually aim to teach discipline and make you submissive to authority. From the moment we enter school as children, we are required to arrive on time and adhere to the school schedule, to sit quietly and listen to the teacher, to raise our hands to speak or ask questions, and to obey the teachers’ orders. Ultimately, this results in us being subtly conditioned to be docile, trouble-free individuals who naturally and willingly obey the orders of future bosses.