Living Constitution Blog 10: Amenedment 8

Source: News Article
Title: Defining ‘Cruel and Unusual’ When Offender Is 13
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/us/03bar.html

Constitutional Connection:
Amendment 8, No Cruel or 'Unusual Punishment can be inflicted'

Explanation:

          This articles talks about whether or not a case was constitutional or not. In the case a 13 year old boy named Joe Sullivan, raped this 72 year old woman. The ruling of the case was life in prison with out any chance of parole. His case was taken to the Supreme Court because a lawyer felt that his ruling was violating the 8th amendment. He felt the idea of no parole was an act of cruel and unusual punishment. There was a lot of debate on whether or not this was true. In the end the Supreme Court decided that Mr. Sullivan should be allowed parole and for the future all children under 18 can't be put to the death penalty.

          This article relates to the constitution because it has relation to the 8th amendment. It relates to the 8th amendment because it questions whether or not a case is constitutional relating to this amendment. The 8th amendment talks about excessive bail and no cruel or unusual punishment. An example of how it is cruel or unusual punishment, is how  the Mr. Sullivan was sentenced to life with out parole. This is an example because as a person grows they can most likely mature so after a certain amount of years in jail, Mr. Sullivan could mature and be able to function in society.

        In my opinion the Supreme court ruled correctly. A person that is as young as 13 shouldn't be given the death penalty. I say this because just for the simple fact that it is a young age. Also many reasons to why the child committed the crime is because of peer pressure and not because of personal problems. If a child is given the death penalty you aren't giving them the opportunity to prove themselves that they can do right. If they are left in jail until they die, they will never be able to see if they could improve their lives and start a new. If a child did not commit a murder, then they should not get the death penalty. In this case the defendant raped somebody, but the victim was not dead so their is no reason for the death penalty. Yes, he should serve 10- 20 years in jail but not life.

Living Constitution blog 9: The 6th Amendment

1) Source: News Article
Title: Right to a speedy trial not violated by eight-year wait, court rules
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/07/right_to_a_speedy_trial_not_vi.html 
2) Constitutional Connection: Amendment 6, "Right to a Speedy Trial"


3) Explanation:

         In this article, it explains why an eight-year wait for a trail was not considered unconstitutional. In the case two men were being accused of capital murder. After the two men had stayed in jail for a couple of years, they changed it to second-degree murder. A lawyer tried to argue that these two men being in jail for so long without being given a trial is unconstitutional and their case should be thrown away. The lawyer also said their case should be thrown away because since the defendants were in jail so long they can no longer defend themselves in court.The court ruled in favor that their wait in jail was constitutional because they said that they should still be able to defend themselves in court. They said that one of the defendants was also paying an attorney during the times of hurricane Katrina to postpone his trial, so it isn't just the court that was holding off on their trial.

      The article relates to the constitution because it deals with Amendment 6. It relates to the 6th amendment because it talks about whether an eight-year wait on a trial was constitutional or not. An example from the article would be that the ruling. The ruling was the eight-year wait was still considered constitutional and the trial is still relevant. There was a lot of debate on whether or not the defendants being in jail for so long prevented them from being able to defend themselves. Which the Supreme Court didn't find true, and said the defendants should be fine in a trial.

       In my opinion I feel the ruling of this case was constitutional, and the Supreme Court made the right decision. I feel of one of the defendants hadn't tried to pay an attorney to postpone their trial then it should have ruled unconstitutional. But I also believe since they lost a lot of their witnesses during Hurricane Katrina, they won't really have a strong case to prove the defendants guilty. I also feel that in the charges that the two defendants are facing, they should still be tried in a court of law, because if they were let free no matter how much time they were in jail with out a trail, who knows if they will go right back out there and start killing again.

Living Constitution blog 8: The 5th Amendment

1) Source:  Politico.com
Title: Have you ever been a 'judicial activist'?, May 12, 2009
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22380.html

2) Constitutional Connection:
Amendement 5, Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings "We are not to be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due of process"

3)Explanation:
     This article talks about how some judges are judicial activists and they support the 5th amendments idea of due process of law. Judicial activism usually occurs when judges disregard the law in favor of their preferred outcomes. This article explains why judicial activism usually occurs in court rooms.

       This article relates to the constitution because it talks about the 5th amendment. It relates to the 5th amendment because it talks about how some judges support the ideas of due process of law which is given as a right by the 5th amendment. In the article it talks about how judicial activism usually comes up in two situations,  A decision must be both wrong and based on inappropriate motivations. It’s hard to prove either part. Many legal questions are close calls with reasonable arguments on both sides, so figuring out whether a decision is “wrong” can be tough.
     
        I am unsure about my feelings towards the article. I do know how I feel towards the 5th amendment. I agree with the rights that the 5th amendment gives us. I think that the idea of double jeoprady is good. I feel douple jeoprody is good. because we should't be charged with the same charges again on a later date if we were found innocent the first time. Once the case is over, they shouldn't be allowed to go back.

Living Constitution blog 7: The 4th Amendment

1) Source: News Article
Title: Search and Seizure: Fourth Amendment Protects Student Rights, October 1, 2008.
http://media.www.wrighttimes.net/media/storage/paper1129/news/2008/10/01/News/Search.And.Seizure-3481941.shtml

2) Constitutional Connection:
 Amendment 4, Searches and Seizure
"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"

3) Explanation:

         This articles focuses on a school called Humboldt Park and if people feel that the school should have more security or they are fine on security.  The article focuses on security because it talks about all the other shootings at colleges as a result from insufficient security. For example, the Virgina Tech shooting and others. The article talks about if the security should check students bags to see if they had guns or any other types of weapons. The author of the article makes a good point on why security can't just search the students bags. The author talks about how the 4th amendment protects the students, and in order for the security to search they have to go to court and get a search warrant or be under the correct circumstances. A former lawyer stated that it would be very difficult for a security guard to gt the right to search a student, and courts rarely give consent to a search for a student.

        This article connects to the constitution because it relates to the 4th amendment. This article relates to the 4th amendment because the 4th amendment talks about how people should be secure in themselves, houses, papers, and effects and also against unreasonable searches and seizures. Examples from that support this idea is the security guards wouldn't be able to search the students book bags to check for weapons because they would have to get a search warrant. The article also relates to the 4th amendment because it says if a  student had a criminal record that pertained to what the security is accusing them of, or if the security sees them with a weapon they have the right to arrest or search them. This is in relation to the constitution because it relates to probable cause.

      I agree with the 4th amendment. I feel that people shouldn't be searched without any grounds for searching because I feel it isn't fair. Most of the time police or other law enforcement  stop people on the street to check their cars because of their appearance or the way they show themselves, in lack of a better word, and after they stop them, they find out they were actually of offense or they weren't at all. I feel those who are searched without a warrant have the right to sue those law enforcements in retrospect to the rights that are given to them by the 4th amendment. Now in relation to the article I feel the security should be aware of the activities their students perform and how they act, but to a certain extent. They shouldn't accuse someone of holdling a weapon or thinking about bringing a weapon just because of the way they appear, because the person that actually brings the weapon is someone you will never expect.

Living Constitution blog 6: The 10th Amendment

1) Source: News Article
 Title: Virginia First State to Pass Health Care Freedom Act: 38 States Lining Up Against ObamaCare, March 4, 2010
     http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/virginia-first-state-to-pass-health-care-freedom-act-38-states-lining-up-against-obamacare-86418607.html

2) Constitutional Connection:
    Amendment 10,  Powers of the States and People under Constitution, "Anything not expressly granted to the Federal government is reserved for the States or the People."

3) Explanation:

        In this article it talks about how Virginia passed a act that lets them have freedom in their health care. In the article it talked about how a lot of other states were trying to acts like this one two. The act permitted their citizens being forced to get health insurance or participate in any health care system against their will. The ideas for these articles were based on ideas of  ALEC's (American Legislative Exchange Council) Freedom of Choice in Health Care model. The measure the states are trying to make for health care, may also cause a clash with federalism if Congress passes a law with either of the provisions in the article.

        This article connects to the constitution because in the article talks about how Virginia passed a law. This connects to the constitution because in Amendment 10 talks about how anything not expressly granted to the Federal government is reserved for the States or the People. This amendment is also known as the States' Rights Amendment. Amendment 10 gives states and people the right to create laws. This is good because certain states might feel differently on a subject and might want to set different laws for their states from other states.

        I like the meaning behind the article. I like how the states are trying to do something about their health care. Health care is one of the big issues in our country. I feel everyone should be able to have health care even if they don't have insurance. I feel if your sick you should be able to go get help. And not be turned away if you don' t have proper insurance. When I get older I want to create an organization that gives healthcare service to everyone, no matter what their circumstances are.
        

  

Living Constitution blog 5: The 2nd Amendment

1) Source: Political Cartoon
    Title: The Right to Bear Arms: A Monument You'll Never See
 

2) Constitutional Connection:
  Amendment 2, Right to Bear Arms

3) Explanation:

      In this cartoon the artist was trying to convey that the second amendment is being abused. Some key symbols are the actual monument and the words that the monument say. The monument says "Ercected in honor of all the innocent victoms who died as the result on the second amendment". By putting these words on the monument, the artist feels negatively towards the 2nd Amendment, and that most gun violence has been a result of the amendment. Also the title conveys the artists meaning, I say this because the artist puts a monument that we will never see. In saying this the artist thinks that the government doesn't feel that the second amendment has anything to do with the gun violence problem.

     This cartoon relates to the second amendment because it is talking about the second amendment. Even though the cartoon conveys the amendment in a negative way, it still talks about it. In the 2nd Amendment it says having the right to bear arms is neccessary yo the security of a free State. The Amendment was created so that citizens would be safe against attach but as society grew and over the ages, the idea for this amendment has began to back fire.

    I agree with the artist in the case of this amendment. I feel that not all citizens should be allowed to bear arms, unless they are of a certain age and have the right credintials. I say this because the way the amendment is written any crazy person can get a gun and do what they please with it, because of the rights that they have in the constitution. I feel governmental and other officials should be the ones to bear arms. Yes, I agree we should have guns to protct ourselves in the case of emergency. But with the way society is now-a-days, we have proven that we can't deal with the responsibility of having that right.

Living Constitution blog 4: The 1st Amendment

1) Source: News Article

  Title: Federal judge: 'Don't ask, don't tell' is unconstitutional
  By: The Associated Press
  Written: September 10, 2010
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=23361

2) Constitutional Connection:
  
   Amendment 1, freedom of speech, association and petition, and Amendment 5, guarantee of due process

3) Explanation:

      This articles talks about how a federal judge felt the ban on openly gay soldiers was unconstitutional and she would try to get an order issued to stop the government from enforcing the "don't ask don't tell" policy. It then went into detail on how soldiers who were discharged because on the ban, tried to take it to court and say it was against their rights by amendments 1 and 5. The article also talked about how certain officials felt that the policy weakens national security. It also states that some soldiers were discharged after other service members had gone through their e-mails. The article said, quoted from an attorney, "if Obama does appeal, then they are going to fight like heck".

    This article relates to the constitution because in Amendment 1 it talks about freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and association/expression, and in the article they were trying to overturn a law that violates the this amendment. It also relates to the 1st amendment because soldiers should have the right to be gay if they want to be which relates to speech. This article relates to petition because the soldiers have the right to petition that policy if they feel it is unconstitutional because of their unalienable rights.

     I feel that the focus on the article needed to be addressed. I say this because it isn't fair that just because you are gay or a lesbian you should be kicked out of the force. It shouldn't matter your sexuality, as long as you are there to serve your country and have the skills and determination to work hard. The sad thing is before they passed the over ruling of the policy, good soldiers would get turned away and its all because of their sexuality. There shouldn't be no debates on whether or not the don't ask don't tell policy should stay because your sexuality is personal and shouldn't be asked when going into the force.
   

Living Constitution Blog 3: The Judicial Branch

1) Source: Politico.com
Title: Lindsey Graham quietly files Gitmo habeas bill
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40968.html

2) Constitutional Connection: Article III, Section 3

3) Explanation:

       In this article it talks about how senator Lindsey Graham filed a bill on habeus corpos. This bill was very controversal due to prisoners in Guantanamo. They kept trying on tring to keep the bill from being passed. The court was trying to see if the bill should be passed because of all the controvery surrounding it. The article also talked about how everyone let Senator Graham propose the bill on his own.

   This article relates to the constitution because it has some relation to article 3. It relates to article 3 because while a bill was being proposed, since their was contravery surrounding the bill, the court stepped in to review the bill. The judges wer beside themselves and there was a willingness to sit down and discuss the status of the bill.

       In my opinion the bill that the senator proposed was sort of bad. I feel it was bad because in the article it stated that the bill tlaked about declaring war but not specifically who. I feel that it was good that the court stepped in. I feel this way because if they didn't they probably would have been even more contraversy around the issue at hand. I think the bill should not be talking about declaring war. Our contry has enough problems on its own without having to spend more money on war.

Living Constitution Blog 2: Executive Branch

1) Title: Obama's Five Best Cabinet Secretaries
     By: Paul Bedard
      Written: March 2, 2010
http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/03/02/obamas-five-best-cabinet-secretaries

2) Constitutional Connection:
  Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1

3) Explanation:

          This article talked about how the cabinet has changed since Obama has became president. It said that since he has took office certain secretaries were put to the bottom of the cabinet list and others were brought up. For example, the State, Treasury, and Defense were at the top along with Commerce, but when Obama became president his top five became Defense, State, Transportation, Education, and Veterans Affairs. It also talked about in the article how each other Obama's top fiver were trying to help to make our country a better place.

         This article connects to the Constitution because it states how the president is the commander and chief of all the major things in our government. This article goes into how the president chooses his cabinent's importance based on what he feels needs to be helped most in our country. In this case it is Defense, State, Transportation, Education, and Veterans Affairs. The article connects to Section 2 because in that section one of the topics is cabinet and that is what the article is focused on.

        My feelings on this article are pretty good. I feel all the current top five cabinets that the president has chosen are correct. I feel we do need to focus more on Education and Transportation and even Veteran Affairs. I feel this way because it is always stated that our children our are future but, if you aren't giving the children the proper chance to become educated the the children will never be the future. There shouldn't be good schools and bad schools. All schools should be good, but because of funding that isn't so. Also in the Article it talked about how the VA was trying to prove itself to be in the top five. I feel that all the cabinets that felt they should be top, fought there way so that the president could see that they weren't bottom line cabinets and that they were as important as any other of the previous top five cabinets.

Living Constitution blog 1: Legislative Branch

1) Source: Political Cartoon

         Title of Cartoon: House vs. Senate Health Bills

2) Constitutional Connection: Article 1, Legislative Branch, Section 7, Clause 2  “From Bill to Law"

 3) Explanation of Connection:

            The political topic that is being discussed in this cartoon is the bill proposal in the Legislative Branch. This cartoon is talking about how both the Senate and the House were proposing bills for health care. The rams represent the two separate houses, and the person represents the public. The two rams are angry and are trying to ram each other. The public is stuck in the middle and is forced to be in the middle of the brawl of the two houses. I feel as if the two houses are represented by fighting rams because both houses are trying to get their bill proposals finalized and sent to the president.

          

              This cartoon clearly demonstrates Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 of the U.S Constitution. There is a certain process that a bill goes through to become a law. In this cartoon it is demonstrating the first part which is the idea. Both the House and the Senate wanted to improve something in health care, so the both came up with a bill. Since both branches are trying to propose a bill they are trying to get to the public to see if the public will side with either bill so that it may continue in its process to becoming a law. Since both the Senate and the House are trying to get to the public, they feel threatened on making a choice on which bill to choose.

             I am not surprised that both the senate and the house are trying to propose a bill. I am not surprised because health care has become a big issue in our country now-a-days. So in order to help solve the problem both houses felt the need to propose a bill. Since both proposed the bill, I think they went to the public to decide which  bill they felt would help benefit them better. After they go to the public i think the "rams" will be trying to get to the president so that he can vote and decide which bill will become law. I think that based on this cartoon both houses were very aggressive on this topic, and I feel they shouldn't. I feel they shouldn't be be so aggressive because then the public and the president might be frightened and intimidated an unsure on which bill to chose to become a law.