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 term means, as it is key to the court’s decision). In the Wal-Mart vs. Dukes, the Supreme Court ruled that female employees couldn’t sue Walmart as a group for gender discrimination. The key was commonality which means having a shared legal issue across all members of a class action lawsuit. The court said the women’s experiences were too different because they worked in different stores, had different managers, and there was no clear company-wide policy causing the discrimination. The court said they didn’t have enough in common to use as one class. This decision made it harder for workers to bring class-action lawsuits, especially when discrimination comes from local decisions instead of a top-down corporate policy.

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. I think the court system is better at protecting individual rights sometimes because judges don’t have to worry about elections or making people happy to keep their jobs. They can just focus on what’s fair and what follows the constitution. In Brown vs. Board of Education the supreme court made a big decision to end school segregation even when a lot of people and politicians still supported it. If we had left that up to congress or local governments, they might not have did what was needed. The courts stepped in and did what was right even when it was unpopular.

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? I see why people think its anti-democratic, the supreme court justices aren’t elected they are picked by the president and confirmed by the senate. Once they are in they’re there for life. This means regular people have no real say in who gets to hold the power. This feels like it goes against the idea of democracy.

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.) Madison and the other founders didn’t fully trust regular people to make big decisions. They were trying to protect the system from poor or working class people changing things too much. Making judges hard to remove and not elected this made sure the rich and powerful had a say in who keeps this kind of authority. Its kind of like a built in shield to protect the higher class.

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? The war on Terror is different because it’s not about two countries fighting each other with soldiers on a battlefield. It’s a war that’s everywhere and has no clear end. Patricia Williams explain that this war isn’t just fought with weapons it’s a fight with laws, fear and surveillance. It targets “suspected” people, and this leads to things like racial profiling, secret detentions and erosion of our rights. This kind of war is personal, and it affects people everyday lives mainly communities of color. what makes it dangerous and new is the fact that it’s a war where anyone could be seen as a threat.
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” allows the government to oversee a person’s calls, text, or emails without listing what device or location is being tapped. This goes against the Fourth Amendment that says the government needs a specific warrant based on probable cause. The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect us from obstructive searches. With roving wiretaps, the government can follow you around digitally and tap into whatever phone or computer use. without you knowing.
3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants? Let’s the government enter your home or space secretly snoop around and leave without telling you until later. This goes against the Fourth Amendment, which was written to protect people from secret searches like the British used to do before the U.S. was founded. Usually If the police want to check your home, they have to knock show the warrant and let you know what exactly they are looking for. With sneak and peeks, they don’t tell you anything until after they checked. Thats a big problem for civil liberties because it removes the chance to challenge the search or protect your privacy in real life.

1. Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”. The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment, and it means that the government can’t support or establish an official religion. It’s supposed to keep church and state separate. The test has three parts 1. The law must have a secular purpose. 2. It can’t advance or hurt any religion. 3. It must not lead to much government involvement with religion.
2. Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading. Yes, burning the U.S. flag is protected under the First Amendment as a form of free speech. This was confirmed in the Supreme case Texas v. Johnson (1989). The court ruled that even if flag burning is offensive to many people, it’s still a form of symbolic expression and the government can’t punish someone just because their message is unpopular or difficult.
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 to stay quiet. It means they don’t have to answer questions or testify in a way that might incriminate themselves or get them in legal trouble. It’s really protection against self-incrimination and its often used in court cases, police questioning and investigations.

1. In a unitary system the central government holds all of the power. citizens mostly interact with the national government, and local governments have little independent authority. In a confederation system power is held by regional or local governments. Citizens have the most influence here because they are closely tied to local leadership. The national government is very weak. In a federal system, power is shared between the national and state governments. Citizens vote for both national and local leaders and influence on decisions at multiple levels.
2. Division of power means that authority and responsibilities are split between different levels of government national, state and sometimes local. In a federal system like the United States, the national government handles things like defense and foreign policy, while states manage things like education and public safety. This system is designed to prevent too much power from being concentrated in one place and allows for regional flexibility.
3. Funding: NY received billions in federal COVID-19 relief through the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan to support hospitals, schools, public health and vaccine roll out. Guidelines: Agencies like the CDC and FEMA issued health guidelines that informed NYs mask mandates, business shutdowns, and vaccines policies. Flexibility and Mandates: The federal government gave states temporary authority, like allowing pharmacy technicians to give vaccines but also required states to follow certain reporting and equity rules to get funding. Cuts and Pressure: In 2025 NY faced the loss of $300 Million in federal COVID health funds. The state sued the federal government arguing that these cuts would hurt public health and violated congressional goal.

1. The word fraction reminds me of social classes like the rich and the poor. Different groups have different interests and that’s what Madison was talking about people fighting to protect what benefits them especially when it comes to money and power.
2. In Federalist #10, Madison says the source of wealth is private property. He believes some people have more skills, education or support like help from their families so they’re able to get land and build wealth. Others don’t have those things, so they stay poor.
3. Honestly, I don’t fully agree with it there are plenty of people who work hard every day and still can’t get ahead. It’s not just about the ability it’s also about the systems that keep people down no matter how much effort they put in. Alot of wealth comes from a lot of wealth from inherited money, privilege and connection not just personal talent.
4. Madison says the first goal of the government is to protect property. I was raised to believe the government’s purpose was to protect people’s rights, make life fair and serve everyone. It’s clearly about protecting property and not just any property but the unequal distribution of it. Protecting wealth and class power not equality.
5. I’m not surprised that federalist #10 isn’t supportive of democracy Madison clearly didn’t trust the majority especially poor people to govern directly. He thought they might vote for things that could hurt the wealthy. This is why the system was built to keep power with the upper class, and in a lot of ways its still like that today.
   

After reading both Parenti and Beard, its clear the constitution wasn’t made for everybody it was made by the wealthy, for the wealthy. The people who wrote it were mostly rich white men like landowners, slaveholders, bankers, and merchants. They were trying to protect their money and property, not giving power to regular people. Poor people, women, enslaved people, and even most white men who didn’t own land were not included or allowed to participate.

Parenti points out how scared they were of real democracy. They didn’t want everyday people having control so they created systems like the senate and electoral college to limit that. Beard shows how the people who supported the constitution were mostly trying to protect their business interests, not help the poor or fix debt. What sucks is the working class had no say in the process at all.

To be real the class system back then and now is still very similar. Rich people still run things and working class people are still fighting just to survive. We say we live in a democracy, but when you look at who actually has power not much has changed. The constitution was created to protect the rich and it still works that way today.

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

The statistic that gave me pause was the one that included the people who make up one percent of the country and that together have 40–50 percent of the nation’s wealth, which is more than the bottom 90 percent of America. That’s really a wow, but it makes so much sense if you sit and consider thing knowing how they are in fact. It is a reflection of how skewed, how patently unfair the system is, how so much wealth is held in the hands of so very few, while tens of millions of others get by with just a tad bit.

In a society of such gross income inequality, people aren’t being offered the same opportunities. This goes with education, housing, health care, even how long people live. It’s very hard to build a better life when you’re always so far behind, and that cycle persists from generation to generation.

You can see this playing out every day. Walk around Brooklyn and see the luxury apartments, $20 smoothies and people lined up for food assistance. Or people like the workers at Sweetgreen, preparing salads they can’t afford to eat on their break. The rich have this completely different reality, and the working class do all the work, and they still don’t have anything. That wealth inequality, that is what it looks like, it’s not numbers out there on a page, it’s something that’s happening to us every day. I am doing things now to make a better life for my daughter.

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. (hint: your answer should weave a summary that includes what you reviewed in the self-assessment exercise question 1-7)

M: Money (the money, which the capitalist sets out with) C: Commodity (which could be goods, raw materials, or labor) M’: More of Money (what the capitalist possesses after he sells the product -profits)

So the capitalist begins with some money (M), and they use the money to purchase commodities (C)–which could be machines, materials, or most importantly living labor you know the time and energy of people. Then they use those things to produce products or provide services, and sell those make more money (M’) than they began with. That extra cash is known as surplus value, and it comes directly out of the collective sweats of the workers, given back to capitalist who’s not doing the all work.

The reason capitalists get richer over time is that they’re not just selling things to live they’re turning one pot of money into more money, and continue the cycle. They don’t pay the worker the full value of what he or she produces only paying enough for someone to sorta survive, allowing them to be able to then pocket the rest as profit.