1. According to the article we read about Wal-Mart v. Dukes (2011), the Supreme Court ruled that the lawsuit would not proceed as a class-action law suit as 1.5 million female employees faced gender discrimination. The Court argued that because the plaintiff, did not prove that all women faced the same discrimination, that they failed to meet the requirement for a class-action case. The Court further stated that because the women worked in different stores, under different management, and did not face the same type of discrimination, that it would be difficult to prove how there was a discriminatory company policy. The Court ruled that since the plaintiffs did not have enough in common for how they were treated, that this would not be a class-action lawsuit. The court’s use of the word commonality makes it impossible for large amount of workers to challenge company’s through class-action lawsuits.
   

1. The court system has benefitted individuals rights, because judges can not be biased and are not effected by elections. Courts are designed to protect constitutional rights even if the public does not agree. Brown V Board of Education shows how the Supreme Court ended segregation in schools despite the backlash they faced from political leaders, and the people.
   
   
2. I believe that the Supreme Court is an anti-democratic as the judges are appointed rather than elected, this was because in order to be impartial, the judges must be separated from political influence and other external pressures. In Federalist #10, Madison states that the government should seperate decision makers from politics, as to protect property and constitutional rights.
   

1. The War on Terror is not a war between sovereign nation-states equipped with armies, but is a conflict that is fought against a stateless, decentralized network with no defined geographic boundary and no clear end point. Williams is convinced that this ambiguity is a hazardous legal limbo where emergency powers—surveillance, detention, restriction of rights—can be legitimised for as long as it takes. The conditions that suspend the normal rights and duties of civil liberties are never officially ended because there is no enemy to formally surrender and no treaty to be signed

2. The roving wiretaps permitted under the PATRIOT Act would permit surveillance of a person, no matter the device he/she is using, without having to obtain a new warrant when he/she moves. This is contrary to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement to specify a place to be searched on each warrant. The “particularity” requirement was put in place just to stop the kind of dragnet surveillance that roving wiretaps would enable. The First Amendment is also squarely engaged in this instance for the same reason as above, that broad surveillance could have a chilling effect on free speech and political association.

3. “Sneak and Peek” Warrants

A sneak and peek warrant permits the police to enter a person’s home or property without informing them at the time of the search and only informing when the police deem fit. This violates the Fourth Amendment since the right to know about a search is essential to challenging the illegal intrusion of government. The PATRIOT Act takes away one of the most basic safeguards against government intrusion into private areas.

1. The opening phrase of the First Amendment is the Establishment Clause, which forbids Congress from enacting a law “respecting an establishment of religion. This is essentially what the government is not allowed to do in practice: promote, fund, and acknowledge any religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) provided a three-part test for courts to follow when deciding if a government action infringes upon this clause. The law or action must: (1) not be intended to promote or inhibit religion, (2) have a secular purpose, and (3) neither have a primary nor an excessive effect on religion or excessive government entanglement with religion. If any prong is failed, the action is unconstitutional.

2. Yes, free symbolic speech under First Amendment covers burning the flag of the United States. Texas v. Johnson (1989) is the landmark case, in which Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag outside the 1984 Republican National Convention as a protest. He was convicted under Texas state law that banned flag desecration, but the Supreme Court 5–4 held that Johnson’s action was “expressive conduct” protected by the First Amendment. The Court has ruled that “the government may not prohibit expression merely because it offends or disagrees with society,” and that “political dissent, even in the form of provocation, is at the heart of the First Amendment.

3. Someone who says he/she is “taking the Fifth” is asserting their Fifth Amendment right to avoid incriminating questions. The portion of the clause reads: “no man shall be a witness against himself. This right is for use in court rooms, congressional hearings, police interrogations, and in any other official proceeding. It prevents anyone from being required to give evidence or a statement that could be used against them in court.

1. The war on terror is different than traditional wars, because it is a war on Terrorism. This means that instead of targeting a specific country, this war is on terrorist groups that work across multiple countries. Terrorism can span from in person to digital attacks, meaning the government gets more power on surveillance on individuals.
   
2. “Roving Wiretaps” allows law enforcement to tap and monitor electronic devices used by a potential suspect without obtaining a search warrant for each. This is believed to violate the Fourth Amendment as this is unreasonable search and seizure, and violating people’s privacy.
   
   
3. “Sneak and Peek” warrants allow law enforcement to enter and search private property without notifying the owner immediately. Many believe that this violates the Fourth Amendment which protects individuals from unreasonable search, meaning that owners may not know their property was searched and cannot immediately press charges.
   

1. White men who owned a substantial amount of land have access to participate in politics, these small groups made majority of decisions, that benefited them. Native Americans, African Americans, women and men that didn’t own a certain amount of land had no political influence.
   Those capitalists also known as property owning, were able to possess not only wealth, but land, government and the economy. Everyone else, the farmers, laborers, women, and people of color had no say in anything. This emulates todays, where again the capitalists control a majority of policies, goods, services, and government, allowing them to mold a world where they benefit, and where the working class stay working. The early American society is similar to ours. Wealth rules all and concentrated to a small few, and there is a clear distinction on who those are. However, the right to vote is granted to almost all. Although political participation has been granted to all, the level of influence still remain evident.
   
2. The people who wrote the Constitutions were afraid of democracy as they feared that the majority which was comprised of the lower class would use their political power to challenge their ideas. They worried that the farmer and laborers would support policies that benefitted the poor and redistributed wealth and power, conflicting with the elites. So the Constitution was designed so that the majority would never truly ‘rule’ and that the power is still in the hands of the capitalists.

1. Since we cannot access reading 4.2, we will have no data to compare with reading 4.1. This means we cannot look for similarities and differences between social classes.
2. The subway station close to where I live is 4th & 9th Street. The F, G, and R trains run there. Another station is 7th & 9th Street, where F and G trains run. My house is between 5th and 6th avenue. I would say my neighborhood is between middle class and upper-middle class. There may also be some upper-class people. I am not really surprised by this answer. It feels like an accurate representation of the people living in my neighborhood. I say this because most of the time when I got home by taxi, Uber, or Lyft, the driver always comments after they know where I am going. They say things like, “nice neighborhood you have there”, or “that is a good place, but expensive”.
3. I believe there is a general pattern about social class in New York City. For example, different areas have different average incomes and housing costs. Some neighborhoods are rich, some are poor, and many are mixed.

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

In a federal system citizens have power in both the national and state levels. They are allowed to vote for both a president while also voting more locally. Citizens can push for state laws even if the national government disagrees. Also a state can pass a law even if the national government hasn’t. Citizens mostly interact with their state government. In a unity system the national government holds more power and the citizens mainly vote in national elections.

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

To my understanding the division of power is the idea that the responsibilities are split between federal, state, and local governments. Federal deals with national issues like foreign policy and the military. The state handles policies around education, healthcare etc. The local government is more community focused.

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.