In the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case, the Supreme Court shut down the big class-action lawsuit that over a million women tried to bring. The main issue was “commonality,” which basically means everyone in the lawsuit has to be tied together by the same policy or situation. The Court said that wasn’t the case here, since each store and manager had their own way of making pay and promotion decisions. In other words, there wasn’t one single company-wide rule of discrimination to point to, so the women’s claims didn’t have that “glue” to hold them all together as one class. That’s how the Court justified the decision that it wasn’t that discrimination never happened, but the experiences were too different to combine into one case.

I think the court system is better suited to protect the individual because it’s designed to apply the Constitution even when the decision isn’t popular. Elected officials like Congress or a mayor have to answer to voters, so they might avoid taking a stand that could cost them re-election even if it means ignoring someone’s rights. Courts on the other hand, don’t face that same political pressure. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court struck down segregation in schools even though it was deeply unpopular in many states at the time. That’s the kind of decision an elected body probably wouldn’t have pushed for back then.

When it comes to whether the Supreme Court is anti-democratic, I’d say yes it kind of is. Justices aren’t chosen by the people of a state or county, they’re appointed which can feel like it feeds into that “people promoting their friends” narrative. On the flip side, if you like the president who’s in power, you’ll probably like the person they appoint. I get why the system works this way, though. The idea is to keep the courts independent so they’re not making decisions just to please voters or ride public opinion. For example, Federalist #10 talks about the Founders wanting a branch that could stay removed from the passions of the majority, even if it means giving that power to a smaller, elite group.

P. Williams talks about how the “War on Terror” isn’t like traditional wars and it’s not one country fighting another with clear frontlines. Instead, it’s a worldwide fight against scattered networks that can pop up anywhere. It leans more on intelligence, surveillance, and special operations than on tanks and huge armies, and it’s all handled by a volunteer force. Two parts of the Patriot Act really stand out here. “Roving wiretaps” let the government follow a person’s calls or online activity across any device without naming each one in the warrant, which feels like it clashes with the Fourth Amendment’s rule that warrants have to be specific. Then there are “sneak-and-peek” warrants, where they can search your stuff without telling you right away and that’s something that pushes against the Fourth Amendment’s “knock and announce” tradition and could even raise Fifth Amendment due process issues. Both show how this new kind of war has shifted the balance between security and our constitutional rights.

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

My understanding of the “Establishment Clause” is that it’s the separation of church and state. It prevents to government from forcing or implementing religion or even favoring a religion on it’s citizens. The “Lemon Test” comes from the case Lemon v. Kurtzman that gives a 3 step process that questions and sets guidelines for whether or not a law is violating the first amendment and forcing religion onto it’s people. Both prevent the combining of government and religion.

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

Burning of the US flag is protected by the First Amendment because it is a form of protest to what is going on in America. In Texas v. Johnson, the government established that although many may not like it and it may be offensive it is still a form of speech and is protected.

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

When someone says they are “taking the fifth” they are protecting their right to remain silent and due process. The fifth amendment is the right to protect yourself from potentially providing damaging information that could hurt you or your case further.

The word “faction” reminds me of the concept of social classes that we’ve already discussed. Just like factions, social classes are divided groups with different interests, especially when it comes to money and power. In Federalist #10, Madison says that the source of wealth is private property and that the reason some people have more of it than others is because of differences in their “faculties.”

I don’t fully agree with that explanation. While individual ability plays a role, it ignores how systems and opportunities are often unequal from the start. Some people are born into wealth, while others face barriers no matter how talented they are.

According to Madison, the first goal of government is to protect the unequal distribution of property. That does surprise me, because today we’re often told the government’s main role is to protect freedom or “ensure fairness for all”, not to protect wealth. It shows how the Constitution was built with property owners in mind.

Knowing that, I’m not really surprised that Federalist #10 argues against direct democracy. Madison didn’t want the majority (especially poor people) to vote in ways that could take power or wealth from the elite. That’s why he supported a republic, where elected officials (usually from the upper class) would make decisions instead. It was all about keeping control in the hands of the wealthy, not trusting regular people with that power.

1. In a federal system, people are connected to multiple levels of government which are local, state, and national and can vote and participate at all those levels. In a confederation, most of the power stays with the states, so people mainly deal with their state government rather than a strong central one. A unitary system is the opposite, where people are mostly governed by one central authority and local governments have very little independent power.

2. I see the division of power as a way to prevent one part of government from becoming too dominant. Certain responsibilities are split between the federal and state levels. For example, how the federal government deals with national defense or currency, while states take care of things like schooling and local safety. It’s also designed to create balance through checks so that if one level oversteps, the other can push back.

3. During COVID-19, the federal government played a major role in shaping New York’s response. It provided financial aid like through the CARES Act and public health guidance from the CDC. That support helped New York create safety rules, expand testing, and handle rising cases. Without that federal assistance, the state would’ve had a much harder time dealing with the crisis.

1. The Constitution was mostly written by wealthy people who owned land, businesses, or large amounts of money and their goal was to keep that power safe. People without property, like poor farmers, women, enslaved people, and others, weren’t given any role in shaping it. They didn’t have voting rights or a voice in the process. The main divide was about who had control over resources and who didn’t.
2. I think the class system from back then still exists in a lot of ways today. A small number of people still hold most of the money and influence, but now it’s more hidden behind legal equality and voting rights. Even though more people can participate, economic inequality keeps power out of reach for a lot of us.
3. The framers of the Constitution didn’t fully trust the majority of the people in the United States, especially poor and working people with decision-making power. They were scared that “too much democracy” would lead to laws that hurt their property and wealth. So, they built a system that would keep political power concentrated among the wealthy and limit what the majority could do.

The statistic that stood out the most to me was that the top 1 percent owns between 40 and 50 percent of the nation’s total wealth, while 90 percent of American families have little to no net assets. That really stuck with me. It shows how deep the wealth gap is and how so many people are working hard every day but still barely getting by.

You can see this play out in real life. I work at Starbucks, and it’s the baristas who keep everything running. We take the orders, make the drinks, handle the rush, clean, smile, and do a lot of emotional labor too, but the CEO makes millions even though they’re nowhere near the day-to-day work that actually makes the company successful. That’s a clear example of how value is created by workers, but the profit goes to the top.

This kind of inequality affects everything like housing, education, healthcare, and basic opportunities. It makes you question the idea that if you just work hard, you’ll succeed. The reality is that most people are stuck in a system where wealth is passed down or grown through capital, not labor and unless that changes, the gap is only going to keep growing.

The capitalist class maintains and grows its wealth by using a cycle called M-C-M’, where money is used to make even more money through the exploitation of labor. It starts with M (money) a capitalist invests money to buy commodities (C) like materials and labor. These are used to produce something that gets sold for M’ (more money than they started with) to gain a profit.

The reason this creates profit is because of surplus labor which is where workers are paid less than the value they actually produce. For example, if a worker produces 8 hours worth of value but is only paid for 4, the extra value from those other 4 hours becomes profit for the capitalist.

Unlike regular people who spend money to buy what they need (C-M-C) capitalists are focused on spending money just to make more and because they can keep repeating this process they continue to build wealth while workers often stay in the same place. This cycle is the foundation of how the wealthy stay wealthy in a capitalist system.