Eight Amendment

1)         Source: Is this `cruel and unusual'? December 20, 2006|By Cal Thomas

   http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2006-12-20/news/0612200015_1_unusual-punishment-cruel-and-unusual-eighth-amendment

2)       Constitutional Connection: Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

3)       Connection Explanation: This article makes you really think about what the founding fathers really thought of when they wrote the Eight Amendment .Is there a difference of how we perceive it and their meaning? Is abortion more cruel and unusual than execution? Is the execution of the mental retard different from a minor under the age of eighteen? The Eight Amendment was written to protect every citizen from cruel and unusual punishment no matters how severe it may or may not be.

This was a case of a man that was executed. The execution took longer than expected so they had to give him another injection. This act was thought to violate the Eight Amendment. According to the Eight Amendment no one should receive cruel and unusual punishment. When do we know when something is truly going against a part of the constitution?

I think that this was cruel and unusual. It’s like killing someone while they are awake. Yes, they have done numerous acts that should not be tolerated, but should we let people die like that? I agree that Anti-death Penalty forces would like us to believe that this is cruel, which it is. When you think about it is it worse than abortion? Any type of cruel and unusual punishment is just that, cruel and unusual. I agree with Cal Thomas, “…why not return to an earlier and acceptable method of execution that ensures justice is done and inflicts minimal pain on the guilty…”

Sixth Amendment

1)         Source: Miranda Rights and Deciding if a Person is in Custody .Paul Wallin. May 07, 2009

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/101611

2)       Constitutional Connection: Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. “

3)        Connection Explanation: A man, Bassaignani was accused of having child pornography on his computer. The police came to his workplace and had an interview with him. He requested for the things that he mentioned during the interview not be brought up in the court. Everyone thought that he was acting absurd. That’s when he dropped the bomb that the detectives never read him his Miranda rights. The court had to decide if Bassaignani was in custody or not.

The constitution says that each time a person is questioned their Miranda rights should be read to them by the interrogators. In this case, that did not happen. According to the Ninth Circuit, the Miranda rights apply to someone who is’ in custody’ and will be questioned. So now they were wondering if Bassaignani was in custody or not. After going through the factors that determine if an individual falls under the category of being ‘in custody’ or not, they came to a conclusion that Mr. Bassaignani was not ‘in custody’, therefore his Miranda rights did not need to be read to him.

                I think that this is an example of a misunderstood case. I’m sure that not many citizens know that they have to be ‘in custody’ to have those rights read. At the end of the day, Mr. Bassaignani was self-incriminated. He must have said something in those questioned that would not be in his favor, and did not want those words mentioned in court. This is an example of the constitution working effectively and fairly, which is the way it should work.

Third Amendment

1)                     Source: Third Amendment Rights Group Celebrates Another Successful Year

October 5, 2007 | ISSUE 46•26 ISSUE 43•40

http://www.theonion.com/articles/third-amendment-rights-group-celebrates-another-su,2296/

2)                   Constitutional Connection: Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers.

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

3)                   Constitutional Connection:  The third amendment rights are overseen in order to make sure that they are carried out. The Third Amendment rights group celebrated having protected the rights of citizens for one hundred and one years straight. The official name for this group is The National Anit-Quatering Association (NAQA).  This group was formed to prevent the violation of the third amendment during the war in 1812. The NAQA has done a wonderful job working effortlessly.

This article is an example of how amendment three lives through a group of hardworking individuals. These individuals work hard for the benefits of citizens all around. Their duty is to make sure that our third amendment right is not violated. The third amendment gives citizens a right to not welcome, feed, and supply for soldiers. This is a marvelous example of how the amendments are staying strong. Nothing is going wrong in this article,

This is simply about the celebration of a good system. The article shows the group working for the security of citizens’ rights. It shows that not everything about the government is crumbling nor negative. In the article it mentioned how rights with strong foundations are on a small thread. I agree with that because no matter how hard you try to make something work, something treacherous a cause all of your hard work to crumble.

Fifth Amendment

1)      Source: Adapted from Insights on Law & Society 2.2 (Winter 2002): 20.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/youth/sia/cartoons/constitution.html

2)      Constitutional Connection: Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; 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.”

This piece has a lot of important symbols included on it. The whole setting shows that this was a court case. The turkey is in shackles, which means that he was on trial. One article he holds up has the subtitles fifth amendment. The judge is making it clear to the turkey that the amendment was written for citizens. The other article has a headline with the date November twenty-fourth on it. The date of the trial was December twenty-fourth. If you put all of these together it shows how a citizen can not be put n trial for the same thing twice, according to the Fifth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment has three major parts. The government can not take private property without paying the owner or owners, a person on trial can not be a witness against themselves and double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is a defense which states that a person can not be tried more than once for the same crime, with the same facts. Even though this was ratified in 1791, it still is living today. Scenarios like the one depicted in the cartoon really do happen.

            I think that this amendment is somewhat constitutional. Most likely if the person was fond not guilty before and the same facts come up than most likely they would be found not guilty again.. The case can be hard to figure out the first time, and they might need that second trial. By then, it would be too late. This amendment is no good if the convicted person actually committed the crime.

Fourth Amendment

1)      Source: The 4th Amendment: Is privacy ever assured? Denise Callahan - Oct 2007 http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/privacy/4th-amendment-is-privacy

2)      Constitutional Connection: Amendment 4 - Search 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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

3) Explanation of Connection: The Fourth amendment gives citizens privacy. On one night, it was very obvious that a couple was doing sexual activities in the bathroom of a convenience store. When the police showed up the couple wouldn’t open the door. At one point, the police opened the door from the outside but one partner jus relocked it.  The police finally was inside, but only to see one partner missing. Inside the stall, they also found marijuana and cocaine. The defendant wanted to argue that they couldn’t use this evidence against him because he had a right to his fourth amendment. When it came down to it all, the decided that he violated his own fourth amendment when he brought the female with him and that his purpose for going in the stall was not the purpose it was designed for.

The constitution is ensures the privacy of the citizens. It also states that the police must have warrants if the are searching for something.  This amendment expresses the importance of privacy. The defendant was in some what privacy of the stall but the police took evidence they found and tried to use it against him. This example shows how the police took evidence and tried to use it against the defendant, while doing an illegal search without a warrant.

              I think that this was a very constitutional case. I believe that the defendant did violate his own rights. He gave up his privacy when he had the young lady accompany him. He did not use the stall for what it was designed for. Either way it goes, if there was a warrant or not, he should have been given some consequences, which he was. I think that not many people pay attention to the fourth amendment. The police are given too much power on this situation in my opinion, and if it continues it won’t be long until the fourth amendment means nothing.

Tenth Amendment

1)         Source: Reading tea party leaves on marriage By FRANK CANNON | 9/8/10 11:23 AM EDT Updated: 9/8/10 11:48 AM EDT
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41879.html#ixzz0zSyiyswV

2)       Constitutional Connection: Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

“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.”

3)       Explanation of Connection:

       The Republican political maestros, who don’t except social concepts, take in ideas like same-sex marriage. It is as if people reacted to Ken Mehlman’s “coming out” and pronouncing his homosexuality was graceful. He stated a sincere apology for not being a traditional person who intended on having a traditional wedding. He was the former Republican National Committee chairman and campaign manager for George W. Bush. Mehlman was greeted with cheers and delightful comments.

It can be hard fighting for things you believe in, such as gay marriages. Political evidence past renders the advice of men like Mehlman and Schmidt not only suspect but thoughtlessly bold! The first state to vote for language in its constitution to protect man-woman marriage was Hawaii. Schmidt was very clever in how he handled this situation. A 2008 presidential campaign that displayed the differences between the McCain and the Barack Obama on social issues, including marriage, was produced. Traditional marriage was showed to be popular in Los Angeles County.

This amendment gives us rights to social issues. It gives us powers, not defined in the federal constitution, such as marriage, divorce, and abortion. These powers might be hard to defend, but we have them. Society might be worst of without this amendment. The government would feel more like a dictatorship, and that isn’t what we as citizens would prefer. We are given sovereignty (some type of control over our lives) and the tenth amendment is proof of that.

Second Amendment

1)         Source: A Right to Bear Arms? The Issue:  Does the Second Amendment Give Individuals a Right to Bear Arms? Justice Antonin Scalia, for the majority in District of Columbia v Heller (U. S. Supreme Court 2008) http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm

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

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.

3)       Explanation of Connection: This was written in 2008, on the controversial issue about a court case, District of Columbia vs. Heller.  The meaning of the second amendment is a topic with gray areas. This means that there are different views, depending on the persons’ personal thought. This topic is being debated, on whether or not the second amendment protects him right for a citizen to have so many firearms. This is a beautiful example of how the constitution is very old but still moving and living in present day.

This can be compared to the case in 1939, US vs. Miller. It was simple, the favor of the defendants because the second amendment protected individuals’ rights or not in favor for the defendants because this amendment only protected the rights of members of a state militia. We, as citizens need to be aware of our rights. If we as citizens aren’t aware then there isn’t a use for them to be made. You cannot carry around an unregistered gun and if you are a felon, of any crime, you can’t register a gun or even poses a gun. Citizens need to understand laws like these and not expect things to go your way if the consequences catch up with you.

There was a point when the U.S Supreme Court wanted handguns in homes to be banned. Handguns can be a problem on the streets, but in the home of a civilized citizen there shouldn’t be a problem. What affect would this have had on us? What would happen if someone broke in your home? Guns are a symbol of war but also peace. Peace to the person that owns it in order to ensure safety. Both major candidates at the time approved on making a prefatory clause.

First Amendment

1)         Source: Dr. Laura Schlessinger to End Radio Show. August 17, 2010, 11:26 pm

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/dr-laura-schlessinger-to-end-radio-show/

2)       Constitutional Connection: Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

“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.”

3)       Explanation of Connection:  Dr. Laura Schlessinger has decided not to renew her contract. Instead she is going to end her radio station, but she claims that she I not through speaking. For awhile she has been said to speech her mind, which sometimes can be classified as using racist words. In the first amendment, it gives people the power, freedom of speech. Dr. Schlessinger believes that she is entitled to those rights in this cases, and she is doing nothing illegal , so people should get off of her back, or as she put it, not so “sensitive”.

     This article clearly shows how the amendments are still apart of modern-day time. We can relate to that feeling of being cut off in the middle of a sentence. Having your freedom of speech taken away from you is one thousand times worse than that. Dr. Laura Schlessinger felt as if this right was being taken away from her. Freedom of speech entitles you to speak on your own, allow you to have your own opinions.

      I don’t know how life would be without freedom of speech. It’s not something that I can really describe with words. Dr. Laura Schlessinger apologized saying the ‘n’ word but she emphasizes why she said it. She believes that freedom of speech shouldn’t be taken away from her. A lot of people find what she has to say racist. I don’t think that her freedom of speech should be taken away, and a strict limit shouldn’t be put on the talk show. There should be limitations on what she can and can and cannot say, thinking of those “sensitive” people.

Legislative Branch

1) Source: Notes on the filibuster .September 3, 2010; 9:30 AM ET
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/notes_on_the_filibuster.html
2) Constitutional Connection: Article I, the Legislative Branch, Section 18, Clause 14
3) To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof
4) Explanation of Connection:
Laws are constantly being passed and bills are being made left and right. This article points out the disadvantage of filibuster and how it can hold back the legislative process. There is a section where bills are being thought of and debated to be passed and made into laws. Filibuster isn’t protecting the debates and it isn’t bipartisan. The legislative branch is constantly debating and moving in present day.
This article shows how the Senate is constantly debating on bills. According to Article 1, the Legislative Branch, Section 8, Clause 14 of the United States Constitution, the Legislative Branch is given the power to make rules for the Government of the Land. Without filibuster, some of the landmark bills, such as the stimulus act, would have been passed faster. In this article, the authors’ views of filibuster in today’s world are demonstrated. Filibuster is when a member of a legislative assembly tries uses an irrelevant, long speech in attempt to prevent an action that is being debated.
Filibuster is being used the wrong way, but a world without it might not be the best thing. Personally, I nevver knew that filibuster exsisted. It's hard to believe, but it does. Minorities should get this power but not to the exent given. If filibuster was used in a more fair gesture than I couldn’t really see a problem. The legislative branch has an effect on group ages. It is important to keep up with politics because these laws have an impact on how we live our daily lives. The Senate isn’t completely broken, but changes need to be made. The two parties clash because of some unfit rules. Without the legislative branch, there would be no hope of problem like that getting addressed.Filibuster can be corrected if enough memebers on Senate would just vote.

Judicial Branch

1) Source: Right-wing race-baiting? 8/26/10 4:27 AM EDT Updated: 8/26/10 2:27 PM EDT
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41473.html
2) Constitutional Connection: Article III, Section 2, Clause 2
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
This article addressed racial profiling taking place in politics. Racial justice is an important issue. Now we have African Americans running with the “big dogs” and there isn’t room for racial profiling. In cases like these, the judicial branch steps in. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial and anything less is considered unjust.
The author displays how people are comparing Goldwater to a racist, Senator Wallace. Goldwater has showed some behaviors that could be classified as racism, such as in the late 1960’s when he went against a Civil Rights Act. It took a long time for African Americans to have some rights that should have been given a right to us a long time ago, such as voting. Even though time has progressed, racial profiling still occurs.
The judicial branch is constantly making sure that each trial is fair. They interpret Laws for citizens to understand. Without the judicial branch, a lot of citizen would be even more lost than before. The judicial branch is helpful to maintain checks and balances. Citizens need to be informed about laws and such, and that is what the Judicial Branch is for. The Judicial Branch is there for a purpose, which is still used in present day.

Executive Branch

1) Source: YouTube, Barack Obama Sworn in by John G. Roberts. Posted January 20, 2009

2) Connection to the Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

3) Explanation of Connection: This is a video of Obama being sworn in. What better to represent this statement than a visual of the present president saying it? Before becoming president, Obama had to complete a lot of tasks, including this one. An oath is a promise for a calling towards something that the person giving the oath believes to be sacred. When Obama said these words he made an oath, a promise, to do his best with the needs of the people in mind.

A president has a lot on his plate to accomplish. The president needs to be someone trusted, whom citizens can rely on. This task is not an easy role to take on. After becoming President, the life of the candidate and their family while change forever. You have those crazed fans and those assassins out there waiting to kill you.

Obama becoming president was an important significance. Standing at that podium, he was the first African American President. He has opened doors and opportunities. Numerous problems lie ahead for the president to pick up and leave off where the recent president left off. Once the president is sworn in, they take on a role, as the leader of the U.S.A.