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 relates to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what this legal term means, as it is key to the court’s decision).

In the case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the Supreme Court ruled against the 1.5 million women in the class-action lawsuit due to two questions of commonality within the case. The first concern was if the class should be able to receive monetary relief in addition to declaratory relief. The supreme court ruled against the proposed monetary relief stating that they did not file under b(3) (which would have allowed possible monetary relief) because the initial request was for declaratory relief, b(2). The second question of commonality within the case is if all women had a common “question of law or fact in the case. The Supreme Court feared that a ruling in favor of the class would result in an implausible common solution. Since the plaintiffs did not come from the same store, or area or had a problem with the same managers etc. they were unable to prove that they all had the same problem, but they reiterated even more saying that they would be unable to find a common solution for all of them. In a class-action lawsuit, according to civil procedure there needs not only to be a common problem between the class but they need to be affected the same/similarly and be on the same page about how they will receive retribution.

1. According to MLK, how can we tell the difference between just and unjust laws? Understanding these questions is the most important part of this module, and I will ask it again during our second exam.

• According to MLK, we can tell the difference between unjust and just laws because an unjust law is a law that degrades human personality, while a just law uplifts human personality. What does that mean? It means that unjust laws are created by the majority with the intention to devalue the minority. A just law on the other hand, is created with the intention of uplifting all parties with the intention of safety, security and advancement. 

2. In your view, is this an important distinction (between just and unjust laws), do you think it makes a difference in the way someone (as an individual, or our society as a whole) lives their lives? Can it affect our politics?

• In my opinion, I believe it is important to make the distinction between just and unjust laws. How we shape our views on laws, question them and follow them, is all based on our own moral view of the court system. Most people go throughout life not breaking any laws, because they are only faced with an option of morals and not an option of justice. This affects people’s daily life and view on abiding by the law, morally a person knows they should not drink and drive so they won’t. On the other hand, the court system will arrest us as we attend PEACEFUL protests or sit-ins, though it is our literal constitutional right, they are still arresting people peacefully protesting, because their issue is the protest itself, they never cared for whether it was peaceful or not. This can really alter people’s perception of morality, especially in politics. 

3. Based on our discussion of Question 1, give an example of an unjust and just law, in the US today. Explain what makes it unjust or just (using MLK’s definition of those two types of laws).

• An example of  just law would be no smoking on airplanes, this is because the reality of it is, you can smoke once you land or before you enter the airport. The smoke in a closed environment can not only affect other passengers but also the flight crew, who fly all day. This is a just law because it protects all parties, though the person who may want to smoke might be upset, science outweighs feelings, especially in regards to the law. An example of an unjust law would be the use and need of monetary bail. A defendant should not have to sit and rot in jail for an alleged crime just because he is poor and cannot afford the bail, rather than the richer counterparts who are able to pay the bail and stay in the embrace of their family and friends beforehand.

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?

• Informed by P. Williams in “This Dangerous Patriot’s Game”, the war on terror is a new type of war because it is a war against the mind. The war on terror can translate to a war on anyone who makes us feel afraid. The war on terror is different from traditional wars because this war has no specificity, it is not a war on land, idols or resources, but a war being guided on fear, which is varying from person to person.

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 seem to violate the Bill of Rights because it can allow investigators to potentially obtain information from innocent parties that might have only casually met the suspect. This seems to violate Amendment IV,“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” because it can lead to privacy violations of parties who have come in contact with the accused.

3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?

• Sneak and Peek Warrants could potentially violate the Bill of Rights because it allows investigators to search a suspect’s premises without immediately notifying the suspect. This could potentially violate Amendment IV for the same reasoning in question two but also possibly Amendment IX due to the fact that it could breach common-law and/or the natural rights of an innocent individual.

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

• Based on the reading in American Government: 4.2 Securing Basic Freedoms, I understand the Establishment Clause as Congress’ way of preventing the establishment of a primary religion in the government. As explained in the text, many countries during this time fought in long and gruesome wars to have their religion be the primary religion represented in their government and because of this, the United States wanted to prevent this by separating church and state. The Lemon Test is a test that makes sure the Establishment Clause is not being breached for the laws or potential laws being put in place. 

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

• Based on the reading in American Government: 4.2 Securing Basic Freedoms, I understand that the burning of the US flag is protected by the First Amendment. The reason it is protected under the First Amendment can be showcased in the case of Texas v. Johnson. In 1984 Johnson was arrested for desecration of the US flag among other charges, but by 1989 the Supreme Court ruled that the burning of the US flag is a form of symbolic speech and therefore protected under the First Amendment. Since then, there have been many attempts in congress to pass the “Flag Protection Act” which was deemed unconstitutional. 

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

• When someone says “I’m taking the Fifth” they are referring to the Fifth Amendment right to not give evidence or say anything in a court of law or to a law enforcement office that could potentially be an admission of guilt or incriminating.

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.

• Throughout the reading in Module 10, specifically “American Government: The Dual Court System”, I was able to learn why and in what ways the court system is better suited to protect the individual rather than the elected branches of government. My first example is showcased in the fact that The Dual Court System implies that each individual has more than just one court system to protect their rights. This allows the individual to appeal between the courts and make sure they have the right to a fair and sound decision. An example of this can be shown in the case of State V. Morgan where the defendant’s original appeal for a new trial was denied by the superior courts. The Court of Appeals then remanded the decision and the superior court granted a new trial based on the evidence that the defendant had ineffective counsel.

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.)

• In my opinion, I agree that the federal court system, specifically the Supreme Court, is an anti-democratic sector of our government. Specifically because the federal judges in my eyes are appointed based on what the current President’s goals are. For example, during Donald Trump’s presidency he appointed Associate Justice Kavanaugh, a republican known for his “Starr Report” on the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal. Hilariously enough, Trump finds himself in a very similar position currently in which I think he chose the people around him wisely so they could support him when needed and through this next election. In my opinion, the reason we appoint our federal judges is because at the time of constructing the court system, politicians believed that with choice came an opportunity for the working class to be influenced negatively and against what they currently deemed appropriate.

1. 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)

• After reading Pierre Jalee: ‘How Capitalism Works”, (Monthly Review Press, 1977), p. 22-31, in my understanding M-C-M is usually utilized by the capitalist class as you must have money beforehand, to obtain your commodity. M-C-M means you use money to obtain a product and then make money from selling the product. It is different from C-M-C where you make your commodity to sell and obtain more means of production. The last M in M-C-M shows how capitalists use surplus value to avoid using their own capital to fund their production. The amount of money put into the commodity needs to be lower than what is received from selling the product so that business leaders can continue to maintain and increase their wealth.

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.

• Based on both arguments in module six, “”Democracy for the Few” By Michael Parenti (Cengage, 2011), p. 5-12 and “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States”, Chapter 2,  A Survey of the Economic Interests (edited excerpt) by Charles Beard, the social class that wrote the Constitution were white male landed proprietors, otherwise known as property- owning white males. This is shown on page 10 of “Democracy for the Few” By Michael Parenti,   Madison argued “The propertyless majority, as Madison pointed out in Federalist No. 10, must not be allowed to concert in common cause against the propertied class and its established social order.” I felt that this quoted argument most accurately perceives not only how the Founding Fathers viewed themselves in society but also how they excluded the working class from being able to be heard. 

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

• In my opinion, the social class structure of early United States society is similar to the current social class structure in a broader more general sense. Capitalists still exploit their workers, hoard wealth between the 1% and merchants are even more involved in political campaigns and voting. On the other hand, society has developed many classes in between the 1% and what was known then as the working class in the 1700s. As society has progressed, the capitalist agenda has heightened and the working class can be defined and perceived in extremely different ways. A doctor at Mount Sinai is a part of the working class as well as a food service worker at Chopt,  but how most people see those two types of work are extremely different and in return, has divided the working class into even more layers, with the goal being to be as close to capitalism as possible. 

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.

• The people who wrote the Constitution were afraid of democracy because they were in fear of what would happen if the working class had the majority vote. They thought that if the working class had the majority vote, they would revolt and in return deny the capitalist class their ability to create and attain capital.

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

• After reading The Federalist Papers excerpts and coming across the term “faction”, I immediately thought of when we were learning about the different political ideologies in class. 

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 less ….”

• After reading Federalist #10, source of wealth was dependent on what level men were at in terms of if they owned property or not, and the value. I interpret faculties as referring to the factors determined in one’s right to own property. Madison argued, “…the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties… ” This shows why men with aligning values allowed property and the right to vote and others remained poor. 

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

• No, if I am interpreting correctly, I do not agree that wealth should only be distributed to people who are aligned with the views of current society at all times. I believe that wealth should not be hoarded by individuals and be distributed through communities reducing poverty. 

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.

• In simple terms, the core mission of the US government during this time was to protect men’s differences (mainly in owning property). Based on Federalist #10, it does not surprise me that the priority was to show they were protecting the working class, since they feared democracy. This is similar to what our government’s current mission seems to suggest; “To protect and promote U.S. security, prosperity, and democratic values and shape an international environment in which all Americans can thrive”, which is to “protect” and maintain peace for Americans.

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…

• After reading Federalist #10 and answering the questions above, I am not surprised that the author is not in support of a pure democracy. In my opinion, I think the author was in favor of a more representative government because it allowed the capitalist class to remain unnoticed to the public eye and they would be able to continue to exploit the working class without fear of increased factions causing revolts.

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

• While reading M. Parenti, “Democracy for the Few” (Cengage, 2008), p. 29, the wealth inequality statistic that had the biggest impression on me was that “90 percent of American families have little or no net assets”. Even though this is not shocking to me growing up low-income, I think since I grew up low income and with no asset’s I thought it was attainable for most people in the US. 

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?

• Some implications from living in a society carrying huge wealth inequalities are that  capitalists control and exploit communities by creating scarcity in the job market. Another implication is that working class individuals below the poverty line are forced to have multiple jobs or work insane hours at low pay because capitalists are hoarding wealth. This dynamic is played out everyday in society and I have seen this dynamic more than once in the workforce. An example of this would be what I stated in my last DB, my boss outsourced the mundane part of my receptionist work for about $15 less than if I was to do it. 

1. What is a Repressive State Apparatus? Why does Althusser call it “repressive”? Can we explain his choice of words here? Give an example. 

• A Repressive State Apparatus is where the state controls you through the possible threat of violence. In my opinion, Althusser calls it “repressive” because the apparatus represses the urge to commit crime with the threat of violence. An example of a Repressive State Apparatus would be the use of military level security at grand central. 

2. Let’s do the same for the Ideological State Apparatuses. What are they, how do they seem to work? 

• A Ideological State Apparatus is where the state controls you through the need to fit into society while preventing change to the status quo. An example of an Ideological State Apparatuses would be how politics maintain the status quo by giving you a choice to vote for who you agree with the most ideologically. Nowadays, both parties are so similar you are unable to vote for someone who you would actually want to have in office, but the illusion of choice keeps you in line. 

3. Important: this question will appear on our exam: How are the Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses different from each other? What is the difference between the two?

• Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses are vastly different. The Repressive State Apparatus uses physical force as a way to control the population while Ideological State Apparatuses focus on changing one’s belief to control them. Though both are used as a mechanism to control people, the RSA enforces fear while ISA tries to invoke change of perception. 

4. Post an example of ideology. This could be a piece of writing, an image, video, pdf document, visual art, or music, clip from a movie. Next to your example, specify if this is an example of repressive or ideological apparatuses at work. I’ll start us of off by giving an example.

RSA