Amendment 10 : Powers of the state and people
Source: Arizona Enacts stringent law on immigration. Randal C. Archibold April 23, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html
Constitutional Connection:
10th amendment states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Explanation of connection:
The case of Arizona immigration law is a big controversial situation that had been happening, the constitution states that each state have the powers to chose what they believe is right for that state. As the Governor of Arizona jan Brewer signed a nation’s bill on illegal immigration into a law. Where the law is prescribe as hunting down illegal immigrants and deporting them.
As both the nation and local government agree or disagree with the subject, it all comes down to the U.s government. I believe the reason why it comes down to the U.S government because they have the true power to decide the faith of the United States not the local government. But what do you believe if we take the rights of Arizona law, will we be taking their rights as a state as it is proclaimed in the 10th amendment?
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Amendment 5
Amendment 5: Trials and punishment, compensation of takings
Source: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/youth/sia/cartoons/turkey.jpg
Constitutional Connection:
5th amendment states nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Explanation of connection:
This political cartoon tells you that in any case a person who is convicted of the same crime can’t be put in jeopardy twice of a life sentence of death sentence. This also give the right for a convicted person to keep their property, and not be taken away from them, by the supreme court judgment.
I believe that a person who done wrong all their life and was already convicted one time but proven innocent by the jury, but was convicted again and proven guilty the second time for a massacre he should be sentence to death. But what do you think should people who done something wrong again and sentence to court again do you believe they should be sentence to the same faith twice?
Source: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/youth/sia/cartoons/turkey.jpg
Constitutional Connection:
5th amendment states nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Explanation of connection:
This political cartoon tells you that in any case a person who is convicted of the same crime can’t be put in jeopardy twice of a life sentence of death sentence. This also give the right for a convicted person to keep their property, and not be taken away from them, by the supreme court judgment.
I believe that a person who done wrong all their life and was already convicted one time but proven innocent by the jury, but was convicted again and proven guilty the second time for a massacre he should be sentence to death. But what do you think should people who done something wrong again and sentence to court again do you believe they should be sentence to the same faith twice?
Amendment 4
Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.
Source: The US Supreme Court Limits Police Searches of Vehicle. Commentary on Arizona v. Gant, 07-542 By Earth Erowid. April 30 2009 http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts/supreme/supreme_case7_comment1.shtml
Constitutional Connection:
4th amendment states that the right of the people is 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.
Explanation of connection:
The U.S Supreme Court decided to add a new limit to how police can search drivers and passenger compartments of vehicles. This ruling only let police, with a warrant to search a vehicle and only arrest some of the car passengers, but not all of them who were occupy in the vehicle. Arizona v. Gant changes the whole concept of the 4th amendment, in which police can search cars, that was leading to a crime or for the crime. It also overruled the court ruling in the New York v. Belton case, in which they ruled that police had the right to look inside a suspect car without a warrant.
I believe that taking these rights from police will cause more drug trafficking, and criminals getting away than ever. And since they only arresting some of the occupants, some of them will get away with things they did. What do you think about this situation about taking some rights of police searching cars without a warrant if they were link to a crime?
Source: The US Supreme Court Limits Police Searches of Vehicle. Commentary on Arizona v. Gant, 07-542 By Earth Erowid. April 30 2009 http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts/supreme/supreme_case7_comment1.shtml
Constitutional Connection:
4th amendment states that the right of the people is 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.
Explanation of connection:
The U.S Supreme Court decided to add a new limit to how police can search drivers and passenger compartments of vehicles. This ruling only let police, with a warrant to search a vehicle and only arrest some of the car passengers, but not all of them who were occupy in the vehicle. Arizona v. Gant changes the whole concept of the 4th amendment, in which police can search cars, that was leading to a crime or for the crime. It also overruled the court ruling in the New York v. Belton case, in which they ruled that police had the right to look inside a suspect car without a warrant.
I believe that taking these rights from police will cause more drug trafficking, and criminals getting away than ever. And since they only arresting some of the occupants, some of them will get away with things they did. What do you think about this situation about taking some rights of police searching cars without a warrant if they were link to a crime?
Monday, August 23, 2010
The right to bear arms
Source:
June 29, 2010 Chicago Gun Ban on Way Out, But Mayor Won't Quit
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/29/national/main6629306.shtml
Constitutional Connection:
2nd amendment it states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Explanation of connection:
The Supreme Court ruled that Chicagoans have the right to bear arms in the Chicago area after a decade of pushing the gun ban bill. Even though the Chicago area have the right bear arms, Mayor Daley is still pushing on to make the Chicagoans life of to buy guns harder as it is stated in the article. As it is stated that the court ruled that a 5-4 vote, five voted that citizens have the right to carry guns, while the other four oppose it. Thus making Mayor Daley to start changing the city ordinance, while denying the court ruling to protect the Chicago residents from gun violence throughout the Chicago area were already at work rewriting the city ordinance to adhere to the court ruling while protecting Chicago residents from gun violence. He then want to have everybody who owns a gun in Chicago names, so the cops will be able see who will have the guns on a emergency case.
I believe that taken the rights of people will cause a more peaceful environment for the Chicago residents, but eventually people will find another way to kill or people will start to leave the Chicago area. This will affect a large quantity of residents in the Chicago area, and in the United States. The reason being is because then there will be other states or cities who will might fight for the same idea as Chicago Mayor is fighting for, which might result in a nation handgun ban. But I wonder will the nation be better off without the handgun ban?
June 29, 2010 Chicago Gun Ban on Way Out, But Mayor Won't Quit
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/29/national/main6629306.shtml
Constitutional Connection:
2nd amendment it states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Explanation of connection:
The Supreme Court ruled that Chicagoans have the right to bear arms in the Chicago area after a decade of pushing the gun ban bill. Even though the Chicago area have the right bear arms, Mayor Daley is still pushing on to make the Chicagoans life of to buy guns harder as it is stated in the article. As it is stated that the court ruled that a 5-4 vote, five voted that citizens have the right to carry guns, while the other four oppose it. Thus making Mayor Daley to start changing the city ordinance, while denying the court ruling to protect the Chicago residents from gun violence throughout the Chicago area were already at work rewriting the city ordinance to adhere to the court ruling while protecting Chicago residents from gun violence. He then want to have everybody who owns a gun in Chicago names, so the cops will be able see who will have the guns on a emergency case.
I believe that taken the rights of people will cause a more peaceful environment for the Chicago residents, but eventually people will find another way to kill or people will start to leave the Chicago area. This will affect a large quantity of residents in the Chicago area, and in the United States. The reason being is because then there will be other states or cities who will might fight for the same idea as Chicago Mayor is fighting for, which might result in a nation handgun ban. But I wonder will the nation be better off without the handgun ban?
Freedom of Assembly
Freedom of Assembly
Constituional connectiom:
Amendment 1: It states the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Explanation of connection:
This cartoon shows how people come together for one cause or more to disagree against the government will. I could not imagine a world without freedom of assembl because the world as we know will be in chaos, but what do you think.
Constituional connectiom:
Amendment 1: It states the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Explanation of connection:
This cartoon shows how people come together for one cause or more to disagree against the government will. I could not imagine a world without freedom of assembl because the world as we know will be in chaos, but what do you think.
Amendment 1: Freedom of speech against the war in Afghanistan.
Constitutional Connection:
1st amendment no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech. :
Explanation of connection:
The following political cartoon gives a example of how freedom of speech against something we believe are beginning to being taken away from us. While troops are being send home by President Obama consent, an handful of troops is still there in Afghanistan and I have to question is bringing the troops home is going to be good for the economy or just cause it to be worst, because of the lack of jobs before some was sent home.
Constitutional Connection:
1st amendment no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech. :
Explanation of connection:
The following political cartoon gives a example of how freedom of speech against something we believe are beginning to being taken away from us. While troops are being send home by President Obama consent, an handful of troops is still there in Afghanistan and I have to question is bringing the troops home is going to be good for the economy or just cause it to be worst, because of the lack of jobs before some was sent home.
Constitutional Connection:
1st amendment no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech. :
Explanation of connection:
The following political cartoon gives a example of how freedom of speech against something we believe are beginning to being taken away from us. While troops are being send home by President Obama consent, an handful of troops is still there in Afghanistan and I have to question is bringing the troops home is going to be good for the economy or just cause it to be worst, because of the lack of jobs before some was sent home.
Constitutional Connection:
1st amendment no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech. :
Explanation of connection:
The following political cartoon gives a example of how freedom of speech against something we believe are beginning to being taken away from us. While troops are being send home by President Obama consent, an handful of troops is still there in Afghanistan and I have to question is bringing the troops home is going to be good for the economy or just cause it to be worst, because of the lack of jobs before some was sent home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)