Source: Eighth Amendment. February 20, 2010.
Constitutional Connection: 8th Amendment
" Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and
unusual punishments inflicted.
Explanation of Connection:
The video shows people being burned and stoned to death. It shows people being
ripped apart. It also shows judges issuing fines which is represented by the big stacks
of cash and piggy banks. It shows money falling everywhere. It even shows lawyers
holding lots of money and a bag full of cash to pay out for something.
This video clearly demonstrates the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
It clearly demonstrates the 6th Amendment because it has examples of it. The lawyer
holding lots of money represents excessive fines. The people being tortured, killed, or
beaten in several ways represents cruel and unusual punishment. It shows courts and a huge
bag of money which could represent excessive bail.
I agree with the 8th Amendment. People should not have to go through cruel and
unusual punishment. That sounds inhumane in my understanding. People shouldn't
be issued excessive bail or fines that would take them forever to pay off. That would
only put them in debt and lead to poverty. They should be charged reasonable amounts
in fines and bails.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Entry 9: 6th Amendment
Source: Sixth Amendment - LawWebTV. January 17, 2009.
Constitutional Connection: 6th Amendment
" In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the State ......and to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him;...and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
Explanation of Connection:
The video is from a lawyer who talks about the rights people have such as the right to
have a speedy trial. He also states other rights that they have. They have the right to know
what they are being tried for. They have the right for legal counsel for their defense. They
also have the right to be confronted by witnesses to support substantial proof of crime and
to an impartial jury. They have the right to question witnesses that are convicting
them.
This video clearly demonstrates the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
This video clearly demonstrates the 6th Amendment because it outlines what is exactly
in the 6th Amendment. People convicted of a crime have the right to have a lawyer for
his/her defense. They have the right for a speedy trial, conviction from witnesses, and
etc.
I believe people should have the right to a lawyer to represent them in the case
because lawyers have the legal experience to help you win a case. They know how
you should be portrayed to the jury and what is a reasonable sentence or compensation
to be given to you in the case. People have the right to conviction from witnesses
to show real proof of them doing the crime so it won't be one person's word against
another. People should have the right to know what they are being convicted of
so you know how to plead your case and whether or not you are being wrongly convicted.
Constitutional Connection: 6th Amendment
" In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the State ......and to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him;...and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
Explanation of Connection:
The video is from a lawyer who talks about the rights people have such as the right to
have a speedy trial. He also states other rights that they have. They have the right to know
what they are being tried for. They have the right for legal counsel for their defense. They
also have the right to be confronted by witnesses to support substantial proof of crime and
to an impartial jury. They have the right to question witnesses that are convicting
them.
This video clearly demonstrates the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
This video clearly demonstrates the 6th Amendment because it outlines what is exactly
in the 6th Amendment. People convicted of a crime have the right to have a lawyer for
his/her defense. They have the right for a speedy trial, conviction from witnesses, and
etc.
I believe people should have the right to a lawyer to represent them in the case
because lawyers have the legal experience to help you win a case. They know how
you should be portrayed to the jury and what is a reasonable sentence or compensation
to be given to you in the case. People have the right to conviction from witnesses
to show real proof of them doing the crime so it won't be one person's word against
another. People should have the right to know what they are being convicted of
so you know how to plead your case and whether or not you are being wrongly convicted.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Entry 7: 4th Amendment
Source: October 26, 2009.
Constitutional Connection: 4th Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
Explanation of Connection:
This cartoon shows two police officers about to kick down a door stating," 4th Amendment
Privacy Rights. One officer states," We're supposed to knock and announce." The other police
officer has a letter that says that it's ok if you don't and it is signed by the Supreme Court.
Also, the officer about to kick down the door states," Yeah sure." in answering the other's question.
This cartoon clearly demonstrates the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
People have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The two policemen
have no reason to invade the persons or etc. of the people. The first officer clearly doesn't care
about going against the peoples' rights. The letter he is holding is probably forged. The second officer
is aware that they shouldn't be doing this. It shows that the 4th amendment should not be violated
unconstitutionally.
I feel that they are abusing their power and being unjust by violating the rights of others.
By violating the rights of people given to them by the constitution, they are committing a
crime against the constitution. If the Supreme Court supported such an action, they should
face consequences. The Supreme Court would not give permission for such an action because their power is to guide by the Constitution.
Entry 8: 5th Amendment
Source: A Constitutional Case in a Box of Cash. November 16, 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/business/17road.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=fourth%20amendment&st=cse
Constitutional Connection: Fifth Amendment
" No person shall be held to answer for a capital....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"
Explanation of Connection:
A man named Steve Bierfeldt was apprehended by airport security for questioning because
of money found in a small tin box that he carried with him often. They interrogated him to
to tell them who he was and how he got the money. They found $4,700 in the box
The amount that could be considered suspicious on international trips would have to exceed
$10,000. The interrogators continued to question him about the money but he refused to say
anything and only asked, "Am I legally required to tell you that?” He defended his right
to not say anything.
The article clearly demonstrates the Fifht Amendment of the United States Constitution.
People have the right to silence and to not testify against themself without representation.
He has the right to not answer any questions without a lawyer. He has the right to not explain
himself. The amount that he is carrying is considered not suspicious so that didn't allow
him to be questioned. They illegally questioned him.
I feel that he maintained his right to be silent. They apprehended him for non suspicious
causes. People can not be forced to testify against themselves no matter what situation.
That is the power of airport security being exceeded. It is out of their power. He has a right
to a lawyer and because they did not allow him to receive one, he recorded the conversation
on his Iphone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/business/17road.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=fourth%20amendment&st=cse
Constitutional Connection: Fifth Amendment
" No person shall be held to answer for a capital....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"
Explanation of Connection:
A man named Steve Bierfeldt was apprehended by airport security for questioning because
of money found in a small tin box that he carried with him often. They interrogated him to
to tell them who he was and how he got the money. They found $4,700 in the box
The amount that could be considered suspicious on international trips would have to exceed
$10,000. The interrogators continued to question him about the money but he refused to say
anything and only asked, "Am I legally required to tell you that?” He defended his right
to not say anything.
The article clearly demonstrates the Fifht Amendment of the United States Constitution.
People have the right to silence and to not testify against themself without representation.
He has the right to not answer any questions without a lawyer. He has the right to not explain
himself. The amount that he is carrying is considered not suspicious so that didn't allow
him to be questioned. They illegally questioned him.
I feel that he maintained his right to be silent. They apprehended him for non suspicious
causes. People can not be forced to testify against themselves no matter what situation.
That is the power of airport security being exceeded. It is out of their power. He has a right
to a lawyer and because they did not allow him to receive one, he recorded the conversation
on his Iphone.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Entry 6: 10th Amendment
Source: Results of Study on Cellphone Use Surprise Researchers. January 29, 2010.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/study-finds-that-reduced-phone-use-does-not-cut-crashes/?scp=4&sq=state%20driving%20laws&st=cse
Constitutional Connnection: 10th Amendment
"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:
Researchers are surprised at the results from banning talking on cellphones while driving.
They are surprised because the results of crashes from talking on phones and since the ban
haven't changed. There has been no decrease in crashes since the ban. Individual states who
banned cellphone usage while driving have had similar results. Individually, they are trying to
find out why their data hasn't changed. They are researching other causes for their crash data.
They research causes in hopes of etablishing different laws to help improve their state accidents.
This article clearly demonstrates the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. States have
individual power to make their own laws that are not under the Constitution and can't be
restricted by the U.S. This article talks about a ban on cellphones that either state can choose
to establish or make their own laws. This shows that not every state have the same laws
that they wish to follow. Laws are different in every state. It represents that they have the
individual power to create their own laws separate from other states. They can make whatever
law they see fit without being guided by a common principle.
I believe that all states in the U.S. should be able to make their own laws and guide by them.
They shouldn't be guided by a common principle because other states may disagree with each
other. The 10th amendment is a just right so each state has independence from one another
and can be guided under their control. States basically don't have to follow certain rules therefore
there are less disputes on how they run their state.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/study-finds-that-reduced-phone-use-does-not-cut-crashes/?scp=4&sq=state%20driving%20laws&st=cse
Constitutional Connnection: 10th Amendment
"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:
Researchers are surprised at the results from banning talking on cellphones while driving.
They are surprised because the results of crashes from talking on phones and since the ban
haven't changed. There has been no decrease in crashes since the ban. Individual states who
banned cellphone usage while driving have had similar results. Individually, they are trying to
find out why their data hasn't changed. They are researching other causes for their crash data.
They research causes in hopes of etablishing different laws to help improve their state accidents.
This article clearly demonstrates the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. States have
individual power to make their own laws that are not under the Constitution and can't be
restricted by the U.S. This article talks about a ban on cellphones that either state can choose
to establish or make their own laws. This shows that not every state have the same laws
that they wish to follow. Laws are different in every state. It represents that they have the
individual power to create their own laws separate from other states. They can make whatever
law they see fit without being guided by a common principle.
I believe that all states in the U.S. should be able to make their own laws and guide by them.
They shouldn't be guided by a common principle because other states may disagree with each
other. The 10th amendment is a just right so each state has independence from one another
and can be guided under their control. States basically don't have to follow certain rules therefore
there are less disputes on how they run their state.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Entry 5: 2nd Amendment
.jpg)
http://www.getliberty.org/content_images/Cartoon%20-%20For%20Self%20Defense%20-%20ALG%20(500).jpg
Constitutional Connection: 2nd Amendment
" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Explanation of Connection:
The Statue of Liberty is saying," I have it for self defense." She has the constitution
in a holster on her side. In the upper left hand corner, it states that the Supreme Court
struck down the gun ban in chicago upholding the second amendment of the constitution.
She also has the word "freedom" written on her dress.
This political cartoon clearly demonstrates the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
People have the right to bear arms. It demonstrates the 2nd Amendment because it
shows that most people would use arms for self defense. It even states that the
Supreme Court denied the gun ban in Chicago which makes it constitutional and legal.
I believe people should have the right to bear arms for self defense but not all people.
It would be just if guns were registered and permitted to certain people. Everyone
shouldn't have a gun because some will use them for criminal purposes. There should be
a background check to see who is allowed to bear arms and who isn't.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Entry 4: 1st Amendment
Source: Obama defends handling of pastor.September 10, 2010.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41978.html
Constitutional Connection: 1st Amendment
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances."
Explanation of Connection:
During the conversation originally about a pastor burning Qurans, Obama defended his
position on the mosque project in lower Manhattan near ground zero. He feels that the
developers have the right to build a mosque if they want to. Obama stated," “One of those
inalienable rights is to practice their religion freely ... and what those rights mean is that if
you could build a church on a site, a synagogue on a site, a Hindu temple on the site, then
you should be able to build a mosque on the site.” He believes that the mosque is essential
to this countryand is a positive impact because Americam muslims are a pate of this country
and should be treated as such. That is for American Muslims in the U.S. and fighting in the war.
This article clearly demonstrates the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.
People have inalienable rights such as freedom of religion, press, speech, etc. The developers
have the right to practice their religion freely which includes building a different religious
church. People can practice christianity, budism,judism, and etc. Others may not want them to
build thebuilding but it makes a statement that American Muslims are a part of this country and
the same rights we have apply to them such as freedom of religion.
I feel that no person shouldn't be pressured to worship a religion that they don't agree
with. If a person feels comfort or stability in another religion, why not worship it. If you
know others will worship it and if you have the money, why not build a building for it's
practice. I feel that it's okay for developers to build a mosque.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41978.html
Constitutional Connection: 1st Amendment
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances."
Explanation of Connection:
During the conversation originally about a pastor burning Qurans, Obama defended his
position on the mosque project in lower Manhattan near ground zero. He feels that the
developers have the right to build a mosque if they want to. Obama stated," “One of those
inalienable rights is to practice their religion freely ... and what those rights mean is that if
you could build a church on a site, a synagogue on a site, a Hindu temple on the site, then
you should be able to build a mosque on the site.” He believes that the mosque is essential
to this countryand is a positive impact because Americam muslims are a pate of this country
and should be treated as such. That is for American Muslims in the U.S. and fighting in the war.
This article clearly demonstrates the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.
People have inalienable rights such as freedom of religion, press, speech, etc. The developers
have the right to practice their religion freely which includes building a different religious
church. People can practice christianity, budism,judism, and etc. Others may not want them to
build thebuilding but it makes a statement that American Muslims are a part of this country and
the same rights we have apply to them such as freedom of religion.
I feel that no person shouldn't be pressured to worship a religion that they don't agree
with. If a person feels comfort or stability in another religion, why not worship it. If you
know others will worship it and if you have the money, why not build a building for it's
practice. I feel that it's okay for developers to build a mosque.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Entry 3: Judicial Branch
Source: U.S. Supreme Court to rule on California inmate release. June 15, 2010.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/15/local/la-me-scotus-inmates-20100615
Constitutional Connection: Article 3,The Judicial Branch, Section 2, Clause 1
"(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States, ....... to Controversies to which
the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between
a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between
Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a
State, or the Citizens thereof, and ....."
Explanation of Connection:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court about the order
from federal judges to release 46,000 prison inmates due to overcrowding. The Supreme
Court agrees with the governor and takes the case to decide what should be done about
the issue. They hope to resolve the case by as early as next year.
This article clearly demonstrates Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States
Constitution. The judicial branch presides over all cases under the constitution, in the
U.S. It presides over
cases between two states, U.S. and another country, citizens between states, and etc.
The judicial branch preside over all cases but certain cases are handled by the Supreme
Court themselves if dealing with a larger unconstitutional situation. The article talks about a
case on whether to release 46,000 inmates which is a huge decision.
I feel that the governor was right for going to the Supreme Court because if all those
inmates are released at one time, they will wreak havoc and cause problems. I think they
should build another building to hold the other inmates. Criminals who have been locked up
for haneous crimes should not be let loose.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/15/local/la-me-scotus-inmates-20100615
Constitutional Connection: Article 3,The Judicial Branch, Section 2, Clause 1
"(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States, ....... to Controversies to which
the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between
a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between
Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a
State, or the Citizens thereof, and ....."
Explanation of Connection:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court about the order
from federal judges to release 46,000 prison inmates due to overcrowding. The Supreme
Court agrees with the governor and takes the case to decide what should be done about
the issue. They hope to resolve the case by as early as next year.
This article clearly demonstrates Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States
Constitution. The judicial branch presides over all cases under the constitution, in the
U.S. It presides over
cases between two states, U.S. and another country, citizens between states, and etc.
The judicial branch preside over all cases but certain cases are handled by the Supreme
Court themselves if dealing with a larger unconstitutional situation. The article talks about a
case on whether to release 46,000 inmates which is a huge decision.
I feel that the governor was right for going to the Supreme Court because if all those
inmates are released at one time, they will wreak havoc and cause problems. I think they
should build another building to hold the other inmates. Criminals who have been locked up
for haneous crimes should not be let loose.
Entry 2: Executive Branch
Source: Barack Obama: Supreme Court pick coming soon. May 23, 2009.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22885.html
Constitutional Connection: Article 2, The Executive Branch, Section 2, Clause 2
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of
the Senate,...shall appoint ..Judges of the supreme Court"
Explanation of Connection:
During an interview by reporter Mike Allen, President Barack Obama stated that
will be announcing his pick for the Supreme Court soon and what he wants his pick to be like.
President Barack Obama stated,"I want somebody who has the intellectual fire power, but also
a little bit of a common touch and has a practical sense of the world." Obama is thinking about
who he will appoint to the Supreme Court in which he has power to. He plans to make an
announcement on who he chooses for new judge of Supreme Court.
This article clearly demonstrates Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States
Constitution. The President has the power to appoint judges of the Supreme Court with the
approval of the Senate. This article demonstrates how the president can appoint judges but it
also has to be approved by Congress. It is seen when Obama talks about hoping that the
congress, meet early to decide approval of his appointment to the Supreme Court or deny it.
The president is exercising his power to appoint a judge, he believes will be beneficial, into
the Supreme Court.
I feel that it's right for the president's appointment for Supreme Court judge to be
approved by more than one person because the judges of the Supreme Court have to deal
with the executive and legislative branch. The president must be stressed about whether
the person he appointed will be approved. Adding a judge to the Supreme Court is a big
issue because they will have to sstay a judge unless they retire or die.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22885.html
Constitutional Connection: Article 2, The Executive Branch, Section 2, Clause 2
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of
the Senate,...shall appoint ..Judges of the supreme Court"
Explanation of Connection:
During an interview by reporter Mike Allen, President Barack Obama stated that
will be announcing his pick for the Supreme Court soon and what he wants his pick to be like.
President Barack Obama stated,"I want somebody who has the intellectual fire power, but also
a little bit of a common touch and has a practical sense of the world." Obama is thinking about
who he will appoint to the Supreme Court in which he has power to. He plans to make an
announcement on who he chooses for new judge of Supreme Court.
This article clearly demonstrates Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States
Constitution. The President has the power to appoint judges of the Supreme Court with the
approval of the Senate. This article demonstrates how the president can appoint judges but it
also has to be approved by Congress. It is seen when Obama talks about hoping that the
congress, meet early to decide approval of his appointment to the Supreme Court or deny it.
The president is exercising his power to appoint a judge, he believes will be beneficial, into
the Supreme Court.
I feel that it's right for the president's appointment for Supreme Court judge to be
approved by more than one person because the judges of the Supreme Court have to deal
with the executive and legislative branch. The president must be stressed about whether
the person he appointed will be approved. Adding a judge to the Supreme Court is a big
issue because they will have to sstay a judge unless they retire or die.
Entry 1: Legislative Branch
Source: The Blagojevich Circus Comes to the State Senate. January 29, 2009.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1873946,00.html
Constitutional Connection: Article 1, The Legislative Branch, Section 2, Clause 5
"The House of Representatives shall .... and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
Explanation of Connection:
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is on trial for impeachment for trying to sell senator seat that
once belonged to the president, Barack Obama. His impeachment trial is for extortion.
His case has already been ruled on by the House who created the case to impeach him.
Now, he only has to be ruled on by the Senate.
This article clearly demonstrates Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the United States
Constitution. The House of Representatives have the right to impeach those who they see fit and
are convicted of a crime to be removed from office. This article clearly demonstrates that the house
has power of impeachment because they are trying to relinquish the governor of his position
for convicting extortion to receive funds for senate seat.
I think it would be unjust if anyone was convicted of a crime without being able to represent themselves in the case. That would be considered virtual representation instead of actual representation. The judgement of a case can only be decided by hearing from both sides to conclude a decision. That's what I would consider a fair trial. Not giving the convicted a fair trial would be violating " the right to fair trial" for every citizen of the U.S.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1873946,00.html
Constitutional Connection: Article 1, The Legislative Branch, Section 2, Clause 5
"The House of Representatives shall .... and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
Explanation of Connection:
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is on trial for impeachment for trying to sell senator seat that
once belonged to the president, Barack Obama. His impeachment trial is for extortion.
His case has already been ruled on by the House who created the case to impeach him.
Now, he only has to be ruled on by the Senate.
This article clearly demonstrates Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the United States
Constitution. The House of Representatives have the right to impeach those who they see fit and
are convicted of a crime to be removed from office. This article clearly demonstrates that the house
has power of impeachment because they are trying to relinquish the governor of his position
for convicting extortion to receive funds for senate seat.
I think it would be unjust if anyone was convicted of a crime without being able to represent themselves in the case. That would be considered virtual representation instead of actual representation. The judgement of a case can only be decided by hearing from both sides to conclude a decision. That's what I would consider a fair trial. Not giving the convicted a fair trial would be violating " the right to fair trial" for every citizen of the U.S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)