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.