So, we are ready for review. Let me make sure I completed the lecture before we go into review. I also note that a good portion of the lectures are up right now because, they finally got it transferred to disk -- at least the last few -- and that makes it so much easier. We are missing about three lectures in civil liberties. One we can account for because we know that the court reporter was absent. However, we're not sure about the other two so we -- the civil liberties is not thorough up there. However, the democracy is thorough.

Where did we leave off in your notes, because I don't expect you to remember back to a week ago Thursday. Well, somebody? I know you're looking at your notes. Bill of rights? Bill of rights. We went through all of them based on incorporation. Based on which ones have been made applicable to the states. Went through 9 & 10? Well that's what I was hoping and I thought I had because that finishes what we need for the exam, but I want to make sure before I started the general reviews that that was all covered. Did I give you the six rules for writing an essay question as well, right? So that prepares you for the material for the exam.

You all have your word list available to you? Let's talk about the structure of the exam first.

There are two parts to the exam. Part 1 and part 2. Do you have any other questions? Part 1 is worth 50 points; part 2 is worth 50 points. That adds up to 100 points. Part one is identification. That means that you will identify with a pen or pencil. No crayon. Blood is acceptable. Without matching. Without fill-ins. It is your words.

I will place on the exam 20 words, terms, names, dates, whatever. They will be selected mainly from the word list. However, you are also responsible for the words that are in the text book. Most are, and any words that I may have discussed in class that I felt were worth while enough to spend time on and if I did that, there's a possibility they will appear. If I can remember what they are. Most of them I have tried to get on the list and updated. You will choose 10 of those 20 to answer.

Q How about any of the words coming from the interface?

A Words on the interface? Yeah. I guess some of them were in other interface what we covered in class. In other words, the Sierra club, for example, I could test you on that and you're right, that was on the interface and not in the book, but yeah you would be responsible for that. Yeah I didn't think about the interface, but yeah. There isn't too much that didn't come from the text book. I usually suggest that you give me the shortest possible correct answer. Some people see an identification and decide to expand and show me their knowledge there and too often they make one little error and if you make one error I have to take a point off. I don't care if everything else is brilliant. So the best answer is the shortest.

For example, anarchy. You would only need to put something like absence of government. For Athens: the Greek industry in ancient times where we first have a record of democracy. Or something like that. Very simple. Does that mean you're filling in Athens and anarchy at this time? Any questions on the identification? Nobody's going to ask me if we need a scantron, right? Kind of difficult to put identification on a scantron.

Part 2 of the exam, also worth 50 points, is essay. You will be asked to choose between two essay questions. In other words, I will put 2 on the exam and I will ask you to write on 1 of the 2. One essay question I will try to direct more towards my lectures and my text book. The other I will try to direct towards the other. But both will be covered from both. However, I want to give an opportunity for those of you who want to learn through reading versus learning through listening to show me that you've learned, which is what I'm more interested in, that you have learned.

The questions will be very short and very simple. The answers will be very long and very complex. I don't have to write the answers. I only have to grade them. That's why we call it open ended. It's open ended open mind. You expand on your material. We point the things out in the rules and regulations guidelines that I presented to you weeks ago. The question could be do you believe in democracy? Explain. Most could write an essay. Answer with that question before coming to this class. I can't grade you on your belief, I couldn't grade you then. I can't now because what I'm looking for is that you show me that somewhere from your readings in the text book and, candidly, the other book doesn't have a lot of the practices and principles of democracy, but the lectures and my book do, that you have done your reading and listening by showing me what you've learned from the material. And that's what I'm grading, not yes, no, or maybe. But what you present. Some of you may be great B.S. artists, but not academic B.S. You ramble on, but don't show me one thing new. If I feel that you could have written that essay before coming to class you will not get a high grade.
Now, some of you may have been able to write the essay before coming to class showing me all the material I taught you in class either from your own reading or from political science course before. I would know that necessarily so I will believe that I learn it in this class is give you credit for deceiving me. Which is fine. Because at least you know the material and that's what counts. Okay?

There is no time limit on the essay. Except that most of you will be done within 50 minutes. By the end of the period all, if not all, will be completed. It's an hour and 15 minutes. However, if any of you have the need to let it out of your system to forget it all by writing it on the exam you can continue to write. I am not picky as to how much time you spend and I've said that before.

Questions on the essay part of the exam? None? We clear on what you have to do?

Then what I'd like to do now is review. We'll do it in two parts. The first section for review I'm going to ask you to fill-in the answers in your notes and heads and that does not mean words, specific terminology. We'll do in the second part, but right now what I'd like is for to you ask questions pertaining to questions that might be an essay question and that material that you could find into an essay question. So if there's something that you don't understand or not sure of or feel insecure about that could appear on an essay question, please ask it now or maybe we can help you to understand here even though I don't intend to spend the whole period lecturing on it. Maybe I can make it more succinct. So are there any general questions that you have?

Q What about the referendum? I forgot what that was all about.

A Well that's more of a definition of a word, referendum, than it is necessarily a concept but conceptually, we were all dealing with referendum under direct democracy and the means for the people to directly rule themselves. The definition of referendum in California is different from other states. In California referendum is the ability of the people to remove a law that the legislature passes directly. So if we don't like a law we can circulate a petition and get enough signatures get it placed on the ballot and then the people can decide whether they want the law to stay or remove it, whether to ratify it or to remove it. In other states the word is often used in the same context as an initiative. But not in California. It's not in California. Referendum is in California.

Any other questions?

Q Bureaucratic interpretation?
A We were dealing with that. We were talking about who makes policy and that was -- please remember that although the -- and I'll answer you in a minute. Probably I should have said earlier, and it reminded me, the emphasis of course on the questions will be the bigger topics which will be democracy and civil liberties. However, there are other topics, including such as who does rule, who makes decisions, including the five interpretations as to who rules and makes decisions.

The bureaucratic interpretation is one of those as to who is actually making policy in the United States. Or anywhere for that matter. The bureaucratic interpretation argues that it is the bureaucrats that really decide what goes on in the country, not the politician, not your elected representatives, not the judges, but the bureaucrats. Who were the permanent employees of government. They are the people who remain even when politicians leave because they are permanent there and they really decide what's going to get done.

Q Can you just briefly go over the electoral college?
A Remember, I hate the electoral college. With that, it is a small number of people who were the real ones who vote for president, right? They are people elected in the states so that each state has a certain percentage of votes based on the number of senators and the House of Reps that they have. So every state has at least three votes. The larger the state was, more votes. So in November, when we think we're voting for a candidate for president, we are really voting for that candidates electors. If that candidate didn't vote forgets itself highest number of votes in that state his electors get to vote in December. They vote in December for him or her, if they want to, but they generally do and then in January third, those votes are officially counted and anybody who gets the majority of the 538 votes which means 270 or more is the president.

Any other questions? Are we sure we don't have any other general questions that could be part of an essay? I don't want to leave you saying --.

Q How about civil liberties and civil rights?
A Well, they clash basically because in civil liberties, you're asking for government to stay out of your lives. In civil rights you're asking government to come into your life and protect you. So if you say to hell with government, with civil liberties, get out of here. And civil rights, please come in, you can see the immediate clash because once it's in, then maybe you want it out again. Or maybe it comes in, it interferes with somebody else because you've asked it to come in. It may interfere with somebody else's liberties. Translation, the person who's Jewish and wants to eat in a restaurant and the restaurant won't serve them because they're Jewish -- they say hey guys get in here and help me. I want to eat and live my life. Then the government says you got to serve this Jew and the restaurant owner said I don't serve no kikes; this is my restaurant. So government is enforcing a civil right, but in so doing, maybe violating the liberties of the person who's put his money in and set up his own business.

Q So civil rights are things that are protected by the government where civil liberties are not necessarily denied, but not protected?

A Basically. So if, you start heckling me and try to stop me from speaking, you're interfering with my free speech. But my free speech is there which is my right as civil liberties is also my human right.I say I have a right to talk and I'm not going to let you talk, so I go to the police or government and say I have a right to talk. But then you say to the government, you say to that police officer, government, hey I have a right to talk too. Now the government is taking away my right to heckle. So anytime you ask government to come in, in a sense, you could be creating a civil liberty violation and probably are.

Q So you said so a Jewish person wants to go in the restaurant and the restaurant guy says no. So then you ask the government to protect the Jewish person. So how does the government decide which person to protect?

A That's a good question. Literally, the government decides whichever way it decides to decide. Translation, for many years the government didn't protect Jews and blacks. Okay? 50 years it began to decide to do so. why did it decide to do so? Well we know why. Because of civil rights demonstrations, because of pressure, because of campaign contributions, because of wanting to get votes.

But that is the whole question as to which civil rights is the government going to protect. Martin Luther King had to be assassinated in part. Sad to say, but of course you know before that he had to demonstrate and protest and convince the government and the people who make up the government that government should protect the rights of blacks. So your question is one very difficult to answer because it's one that has been the struggle throughout ages. What is a civil right? What is my right? Is there a God given right that we all agree with? Well, no, candidly. There are many rights. Maybe agree with some, but there are many rights that you and I might hold and then others might not. And it may be a right that the majority of the people feel has a right and yet government decides it is not a right. And that's the confusion perhaps with civil rights. I'm trying to think of something that we would all agree, or most of us would agree, as a right and yet maybe the government would not come in to protect it. But right off hand, my mind's blank. But I'm sure if I gave it some time there's probably a lot of things that we all say, hey this is our right and yet we can't convince government to protect us because the government and the leadership don't think it's a right. Yeah I would think this is an interesting one. I would argue it's a civil right for me to protect myself in my home and it's my right to shoot them to hell if they enter my home, but the government doesn't adhere to that. The government says I don't have a right to shoot somebody.

(student) You do in Texas. You have a right to shoot anyone anywhere you want to if it's after dark.
(instructor) Is that what it is? So there's a limitation.

You can't shoot them if they come in your home. -- well if they come in your home they can. Without threatening you in Texas. Well in California they have to make a threat. You have to show that you are fearful for your life before you can physically restrain them or stop them. Now that may not be true in Texas but.

Q I think technically most people if they saw an intruder in their house would fear for their life.

A It's different with you're trying to say -- let's put it this way. You may fear for your life, but you're going to have to prove that.

Q They broke into my house.

A They're going after the TV, besides, a 96 pound kid and you're going to have a hell of a time trying to convince that this guy who has no weapon made you fear for your life. Right? Well in Texas, I suppose, but 96 pound kids are pretty tough. But California kids are wimps. No. I'm serious. That's why some people have been charged and some people convicted in California of firing a weapon or injuring somebody who broke into their house. So the old story is put a weapon in their hand. After you shoot them, put a weapon in their hand.

Q And is it also illegal to fire a weapon within city limits?

A Except within self protection and you couldn't go in your yard and start shooting for target practice. It's illegal to fire a BB gun and most people have. But most of you do. It's illegal to speed. But -- that doesn't mean that we can't be busted; we can be. We have gotten our tickets. I seem to get one every two years right after the other one goes. I've been pretty lucky that way. I'm about due again, so I got to make sure I plug in my radar detector. In some states radar detectors are illegal. New Jersey, Connecticut, if you have one in your car, you're busted. But it's my civil rights to be able to know that the cops are there. That's where we get into those questions as to what the civil rights are. You got me off on a long one here.

Okay. Any other questions? I think we can go on to the word list. I believe there may be two word lists circulating. One from the semester before and one from this semester, except for a couple words they're identical. I think I may have changed one or two. What you can do now is ask me to repeat the definition. Or define it, I may not do it the same exact way. However, if you're not sure of what I said I will accept you asking me again. However, if after a couple of minutes somebody asks me the same word, I'm going to very nastily say I answered that one already. Which I think is fair. I know your minds wander but I don't think I have to repeat it because your minds wander. Right? Any words that you would like me to try and define?

Q What's the 27th Amendment?
A That is the last amendment which was passed in 1992. If you recall and this is not necessarily a definition although it's acceptable. If you recall the 27th Amendment was the one that should have been the 11th, but it was defeated or not, but it never got passed in 1789. It was passed in 1992 as the 27th and it says that members of congress cannot raise their salary during their term of office.

Q Double jeopardy?
A Well, when Alex Trebeck at the end of the show -- double jeopardy is trying somebody twice for the same crime.

Q Meritocracy is the concept of people who rule because they merit it, because they've achieved success. Not like teachers. They get salaries not based on merit, based on the fact that they're warm bodies. There are those that argue that teachers should have their salaries increased if they prove they're successful. But how the hell do you prove what's a successful teacher? If my goal is to get you involved in the system after you get done with this political science class and see politics around you, how are we going to test that out? So meritocracy is also a difficult one. Basically the concept that those who are successful, those that have proved that they can do the job they will be the ones that will rule. They will be the ones making the decisions. Government by merit.

Q Madalyn Murray O'Hare?
A Was the best known atheist in the United States. Now that she's been desurrected, we don't know who the best known atheist is.

Q Schenck versus US
A Schenck versus the United States was the court case -- did that get into the transcript? Schenck versus the United States (1919) was the court case that for the first time the court used the term clear and present danger and then that civil liberties could be suspended if there were a clear and present danger. In the particular case in Schenck, for what details that you don't need necessarily for the answer, Schenck had been talking to people about not going into the military. He had advocated not going in during World War I. He argued he had the free speech to advocate not going into the military. The court ruled no. That was a clear and present danger. In wartime, in peace time he may have the free speech to do so, but not in wartime. The clear and present danger. The absolute interpretation would have said that if he advocated not going into military in peace time he had that same right in wartime. That would be absolute.

Q Gitlow versus New York (1925)
A. That was the Supreme Court case that started the incorporation of the principles of the Bill of Rights which translates to: it was the first case that used the 14th Amendment to say that states could not ban free speech. Remember the First Amendment that Congress wouldn't do. The 4th doesn't say free speech but in Gitlow the people had the right to free speech even in the states.

Q Factionalism.
A The concept that already -- many groups who refuse to compromise, they just will not work together in any fashion or means. They create factions. Groups fighting with each other.

Q Weber v Kaiser
A That was the court case which Weber sued arguing reverse discrimination because he couldn't get into a program that taught welding for minorities. The court held no because blacks were being tutored and brought up to standards. They weren't being hired until they were tutored and that whites had had the ability before. So he lost.

Q 1789?
A 1789 was the year I was born. Well, I'm glad you laughed. My other class didn't laugh. I got nervous about that. 1789 was the year the Constitution went into effect. The Constitution we have today. It was also the year they wrote the Bill of Rights.

Q 1791?
A 1791 was my second birthday. 1791 was the year the Bill of Rights went into effect. I mean obviously, many things happened in those years, but you were asking how I was related to it.

Q 1787?
A That was two years before I was born. 1787 was the year the Constitution was written. It was written in 1787 that was the year of the Constitutional convention.

Q 1789 was what again? 1789 was the year the Bill of Rights was in effect? And the Constitution was set up?

A Not in effect, the Bill of Rights was written; the Constitution was in effect.

Q Fascism?

A Fascism. There are a couple of answers. I talked about the context being any group on the extreme right. Because they support usually one race, a dictator, authoritarian rule, but it would also be correct to argue that Fascism was the political philosophy of Mussolini supporting the dictatorship of superior Italian race.

Q Hecklers veto?

A Remember earlier I was talking about hecklers? It is an individual who disturbs, yelling things out. A heckler's veto means I forbid. What happens with the heckler's veto is the heckler is shutting people up or not allowing free speech.Heckling is free speech. Heckling to the point of stopping is not free speech. Then you're violating their civil right.

Q Hyperpluralism?

A There are so many groups they won't compromise. Hyperpluralism argues that nobody rules. Government isn't working because there are so many groups. It's pluralism gone astray. Pluralism is democracy by groups. Hyperpluralism is gone astray to the extent that nothing happens. It's grid lock. Pluralism is the concept that various groups compete and that because of their competition, it leads to democracy. The government listens to groups, doesn't listen to us individually.

Q Abbey Hoffman?
A Abbey Hoffman was the individual who stated government -- politics is the way you lead your life. It was the way you lead your life, and finally decided to end his own politics by ending his own life.

Q Illuminati?
A Are all of those people walking around in black dressed like gothic. Although, the illuminati is believed to be an organization of devil worshipers who were attempting to convert you all to devil worshipers so you will all go to hell. They follow Satan. It has never been proven to exist. It is argued that they have been around secretly deceiving you.
Q Alexis De Tocqueville?
A He was the individual who I mentioned after visiting the United States wrote the two volume study Democracy in America in the 1830s that is still used today to understand the American political character. He was the person who argued that American democracy worked because we joined groups.

Q Skin heads?
A Skin heads. We don't hear as much as we did a few years ago, but it started in England as a working class movement because they felt competition from this what they call Pakies. They are anybody of Asian, east Asian descent, not just Pakistan, it's a negative term. Those are the two terms they use that's anybody that's black and they began to prove the superiority of the white race by bashing them, beating them up. It spread to this country and we had three groups of skin heads. One that was culturally, one that believed in bashing people, and one that believed in eliminating them and killing them. So these were young men and women who basically expanded and promoted racism in the competition in the working class who were not of the white Anglo Protestant heritage.

Q Radical?
A Radical, we said in our society tends to refer to somebody on the extreme left of the political chart, but a radical is somebody who wants immediate change now to something either new or old, but they want it done right now. That's what we basically mean by radical.

Q Socialist workers party.
A Is probably and I think it is the largest communist party in the United States as far as membership is concerned. Follow the principles of Carl Marx the founder of communism, but have their own philosopher who added to it or understood it. A man named Trotsky. Who Stalin, when he took over the Soviet Union, expelled and then had Trotsky assassinated a few years later by having some follower of his put an ice pick between the eyes. While he was living in Mexico. Pretty vicious way to kill somebody.

A I'm cutting Dejure. Cross it out.

Q Egalitarian?
A Is the concept that means are literally, should be treated equal, or brought to literal equality. That people are literally equal. That everybody is equal on all levels. That there are little differences between people.

Q Elitism.
A Elitism is the concept that America has rule or any country is rule by a small group such as the rich and well born. Sometimes in our society we refer to the military complex being the elite.

Q Constituent?
A Is anyone that a legislator represents. It's probably the most popular word used by politicians. Constituent needs. This is my constituent. Is it doesn't matter whether the person agrees with them or not as long as they represent them. So everyone in the state of California is Diane Feinstein's constituent. Everyone in the United States is Bill Clinton's constituent and therefore he is trying to appease people in the United States. I guess he does have a small majority -- against Serbia which surprises me even more.

Q Due process of law?
A Is the procedures that are established so that justice can be achieved. A right to an attorney, to bail, to a fair trial.

Q Ex post facto laws?
A Are retroactive punishment. They are laws where you're being punished for something that was not a crime when you did it, so it's retroactive.

Q John Locke.
A John Locke was a British philosopher who spoke about the people's right to a social contract in civil rights and civil liberties. He wrote the English Bill of Rights. To treaties on government at the end of the 17th Century. He is also the person who Thomas Jefferson swiped the words "life, liberties," from, and of course changed property to "pursuit of happiness." that those are natural laws we are all given. The consent of natural rights came from John Locke. A 17th century philosopher.

Q Libertarian party.
A Is a political party in the United States that holds that the government that governs least, governs best. They believe in minimal government.

Q Marxism.
A It's synonymous with communist.

Q Reverend Martin Niemueller.
A Is the German who supported Hitler, later went against him. He is famous for that statement "First they came for... and I was not." translation, I mentioned him in my book . Niemueller basically argued that if you don't stand up for other people's civil liberties, you won't have any.
So that the only way you have civil liberties and the only way you preserve is by standing up to others.

Q Christian coalition?
A An organization that holds that Christians need to go into politics and take over the American system that is run by Satan's disciples, and make it a truly Christian system so that God's will can be done.

Q University of Cal Davis versus Bakke.
A The first reverse discrimination case to reach the court. A white man arguing that he was being discriminated because he was white. In this case, not being allowed into Davis medical school because Davis had set aside a quota for minorities. The court ruled in his favor and said that he had been discriminated against. And ordered his admission.

Q The John Birch society.
A. An ultra conservative organization that wants to return to the literal interpretation of the Constitution of 1789. And fears any government involvement leading to socialism. Leading to communism.

Popular sovereignty.
Meaning people themselves determine their own destiny. People should be allowed to be determining their own destiny. They have a say over their own life and death.

Q Prior restraint.
A Prior restraint means what the words actually say: Prior, meaning before; restraint, to stop. So it is to stop something before it occurs.

Q Skokie.
A A village outside of Chicago where the Nazis wanted to march in uniform. A village that had a large proportion of Jews. It was not a Jew town. And they tried to stop it, but the court ruled
that the Nazis had the right to march. They never did. But they had the right. They wanted to celebrate Hitler's birthday to march in the town and spit in the face of Jews, I guess.

Q The Machiavellian interpretation.
A Argues that those people who rule, rule for their own power. They don't give a damn about anything but their own power.

Q True believers.
A I used in the context of those individuals who lack self worth so that to get an identity they join an organization and become fanatics. They get their worth, their identity, their ego, from joining an organization, usually a mass movement. Because they lack identity. Or believe in themselves.

Q Right.
A Okay, I'm right. The opposite of left. I'm referring to the right part of the chart. Politically. Which basically refers to people wanting to go back to something the way it was.

Q Conspiracy thesis.
A Holds that there are certain people who get together to defraud the democratic system to deceive us so that they can get their way. They had ruled the small group by deserving us by defrauding our system.

Q Corruption of forfeiture of blood.
A Is the concept that if you're convicted of treason your whole blood line is considered corrupt and they forfeit both relatives past, present, future. They forfeit something. Like their property or their right to be citizens.

Q Bill of attainder.
A It is a legislative punishment. A bill of attainder means that the legislature can throw you in prison. Just because they don't like you. That's not allowed. Bills of attainder are outlawed by our Constitution. What it means is the ability of the legislature to throw something in prison for free, to punish them somehow. If they had -- if the Congress had fined Bill Clinton that would have been a bill of attainder. They couldn't because it was illegal to do so.

Q Habeas corpus.
A Is something protected and that is the concept that you have to be charged for a crime. You can't be held without being charged. The judge's right to ask why that person is being detained.

Q Incorporation?
A Is making the principle of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

Q Power elite.
A Basically a book by C. Wright Mills but the power elite argues that the people who were running America are the military industrial complex that America is being run by a military industrial complex, by the elite, the powerful, the wealthy, the rich.

Q Tri-lateral commission.
A Was organized by David Rockefeller's family. It was to create benefit of trade between three areas t,ri lateral. Western Europe, the United States and Japan. It is seen by many conspirationists as an organization which was designed to defraud us by making government work only for David Rockefeller. To put people in government who would support Rockefeller's millions, not the people.

Q Social contract.
A Social contract. John Locke talked about it. It's the concept that people who have the right to govern themselves turn over some of those rights to the government for general protection. So people who were born with the right to govern themselves agree to allow government to govern them. Not to abuse them though.

Q Martial law?
A Martial law usually refers to military rule. And the military rules it's usually called Martial law.

Q Neo-Nazi.
A Well, the simple definition will not get you full credit. Neo Nazi. You have to identify what's new about the Nazi. The new thing is that they believe in Christianity. The old Nazi did not, they wanted to eliminate Christianity. The new Nazis believe in an Aryan Christ and turning people who were blond, blue eyed into Christians, but to eliminated all people who were not Christians, who were not blond and blue eyed basically. Who were not white people. Okay? Good luck. We'll see you on Thursday.