Martin Luther King Jr. believed that the difference between just and unjust laws lay in their alignment with moral principles. Just laws are those that uphold moral righteousness, fairness, equality, and human dignity, while unjust laws are those that violate these principles.

The distinction between just and unjust laws informs debates over policy and legislation in the political realm, influencing public opinion, activism, and the democratic process. Individuals and advocacy groups may challenge unjust laws through legal channels, social movements, and political activism, seeking to change laws that perpetuate inequality, discrimination, or oppression.

To give examples of just and unjust laws in the US today, voter suppression laws that disproportionately target minority communities by imposing restrictive voter ID requirements or reducing polling locations are unjust. These laws violate the principles of equality and democratic participation by disenfranchising certain groups and undermining the right to vote. On the other hand, The Civil Rights Act , which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in employment and public accommodations, is a just law. This law promotes equality, protects individual rights, and aligns with principles of fairness and human dignity.

In the Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court made a ruling on a class-action lawsuit that had been filed by female employees who claimed gender discrimination. The Court found that the lawsuit couldn’t proceed as a single class-action due to the lack of commonality among the female employees. This means that they didn’t share enough common legal or factual issues. The Court emphasized that commonality is a prerequisite for class certification, as per Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The female employees worked in different job positions and locations, making it impossible to pursue their claims collectively through a class-action lawsuit. Therefore, each employee’s claim had to be pursued individually.

Discussion 10

The court system is often better equipped to safeguard individuals than the elected branches of government. This is because judges are independent and adhere to the rule of law, unlike elected officials who may be swayed by political considerations or public opinion. In cases involving civil liberties or minority rights, courts act as a check on the power of elected officials. A good example of this is the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education (1954), where the Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, despite resistance from elected officials in some states.

Federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court, are appointed rather than elected. This has led some people to perceive the federal courts as anti-democratic. While elected officials in Congress and the executive branch derive their authority from popular votes, federal judges are appointed for life, often by presidents who themselves are elected. However, the appointment of federal judges serves to insulate them from political pressures and ensure impartiality in adjudicating legal disputes. The reason for appointing federal judges, rather than electing them, may stem from concerns about the influence of political factions or special interests. By appointing judges based on merit and legal expertise, rather than popular appeal, the aim is to uphold the rule of law and protect individual rights against the tyranny of the majority.

The War on Terror involves fighting against non-state actors, which is different from traditional wars. It blurs the lines between war and law enforcement and raises ethical and legal questions regarding national security and civil liberties.

The Patriot Act authorizes roving wiretaps, which allow for indiscriminate surveillance without specifying the target. This has raised concerns about violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and infringing on privacy rights.

Sneak and peek warrants are another practice that allows law enforcement to conduct secret searches without immediately notifying the target. This undermines transparency and accountability, raising concerns about violating the Fourth Amendment’s protections and due process rights.

The Establishment Clause is a provision in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits the government from endorsing or promoting any particular religion. This ensures that there is a separation of church and state and that the government does not show favoritism towards any religion or practice.

The Lemon Test is a framework for determining whether a government action violates the Establishment Clause. It consists of three criteria that must be met:

a. The government action must have a secular purpose.

b. The primary effect of the action must neither promote nor discourage any religion.

c. The action must not result in excessive entanglement between the government and religion.

The Lemon Test is used by courts to determine if laws and policies are in compliance with the Establishment Clause. It helps ensure that the government remains neutral in matters of religion.

Burning the US flag is considered symbolic speech and is protected under the First Amendment. The Court ruled that flag burning is a form of expression and is therefore protected under the First Amendment’s free speech clause. This decision reaffirms the principle that freedom of speech applies even to unpopular or offensive expression.

When someone says “I’m taking the Fifth,” they are invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being forced to testify against themselves in criminal proceedings. By invoking the Fifth Amendment, individuals can decline to answer questions or provide testimony that may incriminate them in a criminal case. This right is crucial for protecting individuals from coercion and ensuring the integrity of the criminal justice system.

There are three main types of government systems: Federal, Confederation, and Unitary. In a Federal system, citizens interact with both national and state governments and elect representatives at both levels. In a Confederation system, citizens primarily interact with individual states or provinces, with a weaker central government. In a Unitary system, citizens interact solely with the central government, which holds primary authority over governance.

The division of power allocates authority between the central and subnational governments, which is outlined in a constitution or legal framework.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government influenced state and local governments in New York through policy directives, funding, and coordination efforts. This included financial assistance, public health guidelines, and support from agencies like the CDC and FEMA to manage the crisis effectively.

In Federalist #10, the term “faction” is used to refer to interest groups or political parties, which represent individuals with shared interests that may conflict with broader societal interests.

James Madison, in Federalist #10, suggests that wealth, particularly private property, stems from individuals’ diverse abilities or “faculties,” referring to their skills and capabilities.

Madison’s perspective implies that individual abilities contribute to economic success, leading some to accumulate wealth through private property ownership. This implies a meritocratic view of wealth distribution.

While personal abilities play a role in wealth distribution, external factors such as systemic inequalities also impact it. Therefore, there may be differing opinions on Madison’s explanation.

As per Federalist #10, the core mission of the US government is to protect individual rights and property against factional tyranny, prioritizing stability and minority rights.

The government’s focus on preventing factional dominance and protecting property rights may differ from modern expectations, which often emphasize broader social welfare responsibilities.

Federalist #10 opposes pure democracy in favor of a representative system to mitigate risks of majority oppression, aligning with concerns about factionalism and social class interests.I would be happy to! Please find below a revised version of the text you provided:

The Constitution was primarily written by the economic elite, which included wealthy landowners and merchants, as emphasized by Michael Parenti and Charles Beard. Their primary motivations were driven by the need to protect their property and economic interests, and many of the framers had significant financial stakes.

The excluded class from the constitutional drafting process comprised individuals without substantial economic assets. This included women, slaves, and those without property. Unfortunately, these marginalized groups had limited influence, lacking political rights like voting for women and full citizenship for slaves.

Early U.S. society, as depicted by Parenti and Beard, was quite different from contemporary times. While economic disparities still exist, societal changes and democratic movements have led to a more inclusive system today.

The framers’ fear of democracy, as discussed by Parenti and Beard, can be attributed to safeguarding the economic advantages of the elite class. They believed that direct democracy might threaten their interests, prompting the design of a system with representative elements and checks and balances.

In summary, the economic elite shaped the Constitution, who excluded various social groups from the drafting process. Early U.S. social class structure differed from today’s, and the fear of democracy aimed to protect the economic interests of the elite.

The statistic revealing that the top 1% of the population own between 40% and 50% of the nation’s total wealth left me thinking. It is shocking that such a small group of people can own most of the wealth in the world. It is also impactful because it goes to show how much control a small group of people have. From my perspective, this suggests that it is harder to become wealthy since networking is limited to only 1% of the world, and once you are wealthy, it is easier to stay wealthy.

Living in a society with significant wealth inequalities leads to unequal distribution of resources. This creates a problematic situation where opportunities are harder to come by for the working class. Coming from Canada,  the education system in New York is much more expensive than in Canada, where healthcare and education are almost free. This experience showed me how much harder it is to succeed in America when coming from a working-class background. Health problems cost a significant amount of money that the majority of people can’t afford, and the cost of a good education is enormous, leaving lower-class families in more debt. This situation is extremely discouraging and  also makes it difficult for people to move up in life.

M-C-M

M-C-M is a process used by capitalists to increase their wealth. The first stage is M, which stands for Money. Money is essential to establish a business. The second stage is C, which stands for Commodity. It refers to the investment made in materials, building, and labor power. The third stage is M, which represents the gain on investment. It includes labor, labor power, and means of production. This stage represents surplus value. Since the capitalists profit from these steps, they reinvest their surplus labor to maintain or grow their wealth. In this process, employees are responsible for all the hard work while the boss profits from their labor. This is an ongoing cycle of exploitation and abuse of power.