Source: Moving the Middle on Marriage, August 19, 2010
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41214.html
Constitutional Connection: Article 3, The Judicial Branch
Explanation: In this article a federal district court judge in California said that banning gays & lesbians from marrying as unconstitutional. Later on the Supreme Court will have to step in and settle the dispute whether it is unconstitutional or not. They will either uphold or reverse the district court's decision in the Proposition 8 case. The Supreme Court's job is to settle disputes that involve something in the constitution.
I feel that gays & lesbians should be able to marry. Who has the right to tell someone who to love & who not to love. Who to be with for the rest of their life & who not to. I feel that every state should want its citizens to be happy & if that means being married to someone of the same sex so be it. The state of California should be ashamed of making people decide to go against someones beliefs & feelings. What if gays said it was unconstitutional for straight people to be married to someone of the opposite sex, then what would be said. In that case they are only dishing out what is dished to them.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
The Executive Branch #2
Source: State Aid Bill Breezes into Law, August 10, 2010
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40903.html
Constitutional Connection: Article 2, The Executive Branch
Explanation:
In this article it shows how the law making process can be quick & easy or long & hard. This article talk about how President Obama signed a bill giving money to schools & health care hours after congress passed it. Some issues the President may feel really strong about & others he may have to think hard on. In the end of most cases the President has the last word. He can be over rid but if he veto's a bill I hope its for a good reason.
I feel that the President should have thought longer on this bill. The U.S. is already in debt, we can afford to help people, but making an even bigger hole in the deficit will be crucial. The President has many hard jobs. He knew running for President all of this would come so he should be willing & able to take as much time as needed to pass bills, give out money, etc. I feel that this was a really important thing to think long & hard on before just accepting it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40903.html
Constitutional Connection: Article 2, The Executive Branch
Explanation:
In this article it shows how the law making process can be quick & easy or long & hard. This article talk about how President Obama signed a bill giving money to schools & health care hours after congress passed it. Some issues the President may feel really strong about & others he may have to think hard on. In the end of most cases the President has the last word. He can be over rid but if he veto's a bill I hope its for a good reason.
I feel that the President should have thought longer on this bill. The U.S. is already in debt, we can afford to help people, but making an even bigger hole in the deficit will be crucial. The President has many hard jobs. He knew running for President all of this would come so he should be willing & able to take as much time as needed to pass bills, give out money, etc. I feel that this was a really important thing to think long & hard on before just accepting it.
The Executive Branch #1
Source: "Don't Ask" Repeal Faces Hurdles, September 15, 2010
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42179.html
Constitutional Connection: Article 2, The Executive Branch
Explanation:
In this article it tells about a big issue in society today with gays. Many people are trying to ban gays from being in the military. This also explains the task of the President in the executive branch. President Obama has to either pass the bill about the don't ask don't tell policy. Obama feels that gays shouldn't serve in the military, but opposes weapon use to defend this bill.
I support gays all the way & i feel if they want to serve their country then they should be able to. What if everybody was gay then who would serve the country the politicians who don't support gays? I can answer that question myself, NO, they would let gays serve. The world shouldn't be divided between gays & straights, people have their own opinions & lifestyles. President Obama shouldn't veto this bill if it makes it to him. If gays want to serve & protect their country they should. He should respect them & honor them for being so dedicated.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42179.html
Constitutional Connection: Article 2, The Executive Branch
Explanation:
In this article it tells about a big issue in society today with gays. Many people are trying to ban gays from being in the military. This also explains the task of the President in the executive branch. President Obama has to either pass the bill about the don't ask don't tell policy. Obama feels that gays shouldn't serve in the military, but opposes weapon use to defend this bill.
I support gays all the way & i feel if they want to serve their country then they should be able to. What if everybody was gay then who would serve the country the politicians who don't support gays? I can answer that question myself, NO, they would let gays serve. The world shouldn't be divided between gays & straights, people have their own opinions & lifestyles. President Obama shouldn't veto this bill if it makes it to him. If gays want to serve & protect their country they should. He should respect them & honor them for being so dedicated.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The Legislative Branch #3
Source: Congress Overrides Bush Veto of Water Bill, November 8, 2007
www.bradblog.com/?p=5270
Constitutional Connection: Article 1, The Legislative Branch
Explanation:
In this article Congress made history & overrid Bush veto for the first time. It was a water bill that congress passed on to him. Sometimes The President doesn't always get his way & in this case Bush didn't. Congress must have felt really strongly about their decision.
I think that this decision was probably for the better since Bush's decision aren't always the best. This article demostrates Congress' power to overrule a Presidential veto. This is sometimes for the better since there are more members of congress than just the one President.
www.bradblog.com/?p=5270
Constitutional Connection: Article 1, The Legislative Branch
Explanation:
In this article Congress made history & overrid Bush veto for the first time. It was a water bill that congress passed on to him. Sometimes The President doesn't always get his way & in this case Bush didn't. Congress must have felt really strongly about their decision.
I think that this decision was probably for the better since Bush's decision aren't always the best. This article demostrates Congress' power to overrule a Presidential veto. This is sometimes for the better since there are more members of congress than just the one President.
The Legislative Branch #2
Constitutional Connection
Article 1, The Legislative Branch, Section 8
"The Congress has the right to lay & collect taxes"
Explanation
In this political cartoon it shows the Boston Tea Party. It took place in Boston, Massachesetts. Officials in Boston refused to return 3 shiploads of taxed tea to Britain. People rebelled & dumped the tea into the Boston Harbor. They did'nt feel the tax should have been raised & rebelled. There was nearly 60,000 pounds of tea aboard the three ships.
I feel that this act was really brave because they stood up for what they believed. Even though they could have gotten in a lot of trouble they still rebelled. They had faith in their people & their decisions. This has went down as one of the most historic moments in history.It is still being talked about to this day.
The Legislative Branch #1
Constitutional Connection
Article 1, The Legislative Branch
Explanation of Connection
In this political cartoon it shows the two different parties (democrats & republicans) of congress in session. They are obviously trying to come up with a decision to pass a law or veto it. While they are trying to come up with a decision a Republican decides to filibuster, which means to prevent a vote by talking constantly. IN this cartoon apparently the Republicans don't agree with the decision that they are about to make or doesn't feel it will help them in any way.
I agree with filibusting if it is completely neccassary. Some people filibuster because they don't get their way. Filibustering is a really strategic way to get congress to agree with certain decisions. Congress usually don't have a filibuster occur but the ir was one time when a man read from the bible for days. Also people fight filibusters back. One time a filibuster was about to occur & a group of democrats ordered beds & was willing to sleep through the whole filibuster.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
The Tenth Amendment
Source
Tenth Amendment vs TV Time. August 29,2010
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200409/ai_n9425432/pg_2/?tag=content;col1
Constitutional Connection
The Tenth 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
In this articles it states how the "favorite son rule" applies in an election. Which meant the states were not going to pick someone to represent that they thought were gonna win the race but a son of a former President. This shows the Tenth Amendment that states do have some power in things, but they don't always make the right decision. One man stated that "every republican ticket except one has included a Bush, Nixon, or Dole.
I feel that as the people we should consider a bit more what we do with the little power that we have. the people shouldn't always go with the more popular candidate, but the one that will help us more in the long run. I feel that is why we are in the situation we are in now. I hope as time pogress' that us as the people will handle our power better.
Tenth Amendment vs TV Time. August 29,2010
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200409/ai_n9425432/pg_2/?tag=content;col1
Constitutional Connection
The Tenth 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
In this articles it states how the "favorite son rule" applies in an election. Which meant the states were not going to pick someone to represent that they thought were gonna win the race but a son of a former President. This shows the Tenth Amendment that states do have some power in things, but they don't always make the right decision. One man stated that "every republican ticket except one has included a Bush, Nixon, or Dole.
I feel that as the people we should consider a bit more what we do with the little power that we have. the people shouldn't always go with the more popular candidate, but the one that will help us more in the long run. I feel that is why we are in the situation we are in now. I hope as time pogress' that us as the people will handle our power better.
The Fifth Amendment
Source
United States vs R. Richard Evans. December 12, 1996
http://www.joeizen.com/evans.htm
Constitutional Connection
The Fifth Amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless in 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"
Explanation
This Articles reflects on the Fifth Amendment that you do not have to answer questions in court if you chose not to. Nor can you be convicted of the same crime twice which is called double jeopardy, or self incriminate yourself. This article tells about the case with R. Richard Evans vs United States. There was a conflict about the IRS & Mr. Evans had to appear in court. He was asked a series of questions. He answered some of them but refused to answer other questions, which were mainly about how much money he made, how often he got paid, etc. Mr. Evans understood that the IRS was gonna take some of his money so he didn't want to give them any information. He stated that his Fifth Amendment rights gave him the power to reject answering some questions.
I feel that the Fifth Amendment is a very logical one because not everyone has the courage to be as openly honest as some people. The Fifth Amendment right has also gotten people out of many situations. If you don't want to tell someone about you life or your past you don't have to except with some occasions. No one can Violate your Fifth Amendment right but you because no one can force you to talk. Someone can intimidate you but no one can force you physically to talk. Infidelity is another reason the Fifth Amendment right is so important. a popular phase referring to this right is when someone says "I plead the Fifth".
United States vs R. Richard Evans. December 12, 1996
http://www.joeizen.com/evans.htm
Constitutional Connection
The Fifth Amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless in 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"
Explanation
This Articles reflects on the Fifth Amendment that you do not have to answer questions in court if you chose not to. Nor can you be convicted of the same crime twice which is called double jeopardy, or self incriminate yourself. This article tells about the case with R. Richard Evans vs United States. There was a conflict about the IRS & Mr. Evans had to appear in court. He was asked a series of questions. He answered some of them but refused to answer other questions, which were mainly about how much money he made, how often he got paid, etc. Mr. Evans understood that the IRS was gonna take some of his money so he didn't want to give them any information. He stated that his Fifth Amendment rights gave him the power to reject answering some questions.
I feel that the Fifth Amendment is a very logical one because not everyone has the courage to be as openly honest as some people. The Fifth Amendment right has also gotten people out of many situations. If you don't want to tell someone about you life or your past you don't have to except with some occasions. No one can Violate your Fifth Amendment right but you because no one can force you to talk. Someone can intimidate you but no one can force you physically to talk. Infidelity is another reason the Fifth Amendment right is so important. a popular phase referring to this right is when someone says "I plead the Fifth".
The Fourth Amendment
Source
Terry vs. Ohio argued December 12, 1967
http://www.answers.com/topic/terry-v-ohio
Constitutional Connection
The Fourth Amendment
"The right of 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."
Explanation
This articles demostrates your Fourth Amendment right. Which basically says a police or someone of authority cannot search you out of random without a warrant. This article was about a man that was walking with his friends one day & they were suspiciously observing a store. A policeman watched closely as they paced back & forth about a dozen times before walking up the street. The policeman stopped them & searched them to find suspect Terry with a gun. He was arrested & once arrived at court said the policeman violated his Fourth Amendment Right. Which technically was true since no warrant was involved.
I feel that the Fourth Amendment should be obeyed at all times but in some cases your life & other peoples live are at danger. If someone like Terry was walking up & down my store i would want the police to come & arrest him. I feel that this Amendment only goes to the cops that wrongfully search people just because of the way they walk or the way that they dress. Who do you feel should have won the case between Terry & Ohio.
Terry vs. Ohio argued December 12, 1967
http://www.answers.com/topic/terry-v-ohio
Constitutional Connection
The Fourth Amendment
"The right of 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."
Explanation
This articles demostrates your Fourth Amendment right. Which basically says a police or someone of authority cannot search you out of random without a warrant. This article was about a man that was walking with his friends one day & they were suspiciously observing a store. A policeman watched closely as they paced back & forth about a dozen times before walking up the street. The policeman stopped them & searched them to find suspect Terry with a gun. He was arrested & once arrived at court said the policeman violated his Fourth Amendment Right. Which technically was true since no warrant was involved.
I feel that the Fourth Amendment should be obeyed at all times but in some cases your life & other peoples live are at danger. If someone like Terry was walking up & down my store i would want the police to come & arrest him. I feel that this Amendment only goes to the cops that wrongfully search people just because of the way they walk or the way that they dress. Who do you feel should have won the case between Terry & Ohio.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
The Second Amendment
Source
Brandy Act Checks Nix 136,000 Gun Buys in 2002
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/guncontrol/a/bradychecks.htm
Constitutional Connection
Second 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
In this article it explains how a background check has to be performed in order for a firearm from a licensed dealer to a purchaser. This is performed to check and make sure that they have no gun offenses or anything relating to violence with a gun. If they do they are unable to buy a gun legally. With these restrictions less people will own guns legally and the ones that due will be brought to justice hopefully.
This article shows that not every human being is allowed to bea a firearm. These are also rules to the Constitution rules. Even though the Constitution states that a person has the right to a gun dowsnt mean every person can. If the police was to arrest someone with a license to a gun they would be violating that persons rights. However, if a person is taking advantage of the right and demonstarting unsafe actions with their firearm they can be detained.
I feel that this law is helpful but not as efficent as it could be. People break the Constitutional laws all the time but this one results in the killing of many innocent people. Illegal trade of guns happen everyday but with this Amendment people who try to do it the legal way that can't most of the time will give up because they don't want to be in prison again. A world without this law would be corrupt. everybody would have a gun even psychotic people who don't understand when and when not to hurt someone. I feel this is a need Amendment that should be strengthened with the help of the government.
Brandy Act Checks Nix 136,000 Gun Buys in 2002
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/guncontrol/a/bradychecks.htm
Constitutional Connection
Second 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
In this article it explains how a background check has to be performed in order for a firearm from a licensed dealer to a purchaser. This is performed to check and make sure that they have no gun offenses or anything relating to violence with a gun. If they do they are unable to buy a gun legally. With these restrictions less people will own guns legally and the ones that due will be brought to justice hopefully.
This article shows that not every human being is allowed to bea a firearm. These are also rules to the Constitution rules. Even though the Constitution states that a person has the right to a gun dowsnt mean every person can. If the police was to arrest someone with a license to a gun they would be violating that persons rights. However, if a person is taking advantage of the right and demonstarting unsafe actions with their firearm they can be detained.
I feel that this law is helpful but not as efficent as it could be. People break the Constitutional laws all the time but this one results in the killing of many innocent people. Illegal trade of guns happen everyday but with this Amendment people who try to do it the legal way that can't most of the time will give up because they don't want to be in prison again. A world without this law would be corrupt. everybody would have a gun even psychotic people who don't understand when and when not to hurt someone. I feel this is a need Amendment that should be strengthened with the help of the government.
The First Amendment #2
Source
Russian police detain 100 during freedom-of-assembly protests. August 1,2010
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/Russian-police-detain-100-during-freedom-of-assembly-protests/articleshow/6242990.cms
Constitutional Connection
First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government"
Explanation
In this article 100's of people gathered to protest against police on Moscow Victory Square. Police arrested about a hundred people violating their right to freedom of assembly. Protesters chanted "away with state police" The head of the leading Russian human rights organization Helsinki Group, Lyudmila Alexeyeva, allowed the police to violently interfere.
This article shows how citizens know their rights & the Constitutional laws are violated. The people of Moscow understand that they have the right to disagree with the government if they don't like something that they are doing. The government has to understand that citizens have more power than they give them. The people that were arrested cannot be detained for long because they have rights.
I disagree with the police actions because the people are only addressing their opinions. The government should'nt be so quick to take actions and think some things through. If they did American might not be in the situation there in today. Freedom of Assembly is one Constitutional right that people use very wisely. They know that they are able to disagree or protest on anything the Government or anybody else has to say.
Russian police detain 100 during freedom-of-assembly protests. August 1,2010
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/Russian-police-detain-100-during-freedom-of-assembly-protests/articleshow/6242990.cms
Constitutional Connection
First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government"
Explanation
In this article 100's of people gathered to protest against police on Moscow Victory Square. Police arrested about a hundred people violating their right to freedom of assembly. Protesters chanted "away with state police" The head of the leading Russian human rights organization Helsinki Group, Lyudmila Alexeyeva, allowed the police to violently interfere.
This article shows how citizens know their rights & the Constitutional laws are violated. The people of Moscow understand that they have the right to disagree with the government if they don't like something that they are doing. The government has to understand that citizens have more power than they give them. The people that were arrested cannot be detained for long because they have rights.
I disagree with the police actions because the people are only addressing their opinions. The government should'nt be so quick to take actions and think some things through. If they did American might not be in the situation there in today. Freedom of Assembly is one Constitutional right that people use very wisely. They know that they are able to disagree or protest on anything the Government or anybody else has to say.
The First Amendment #1
Source
So Much For Free Speech. August 25, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/opinion/18sun1.html?_r=1&ref=freedom_of_speech_and_expression
Constitutional Connection
First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government."
Analysis of Connection
While certain people have the right to broadcast things over the radio or the screen depending on the time & the rating. The First Amendment clearly states that a person has the right to freedom of speech. In this article it states that a person can say something at 10:00pm on broadcast television that they can't say at 9:55pm. They feel it is some things that should not be said at all on broadcast television no matter what the time is.
This article expresses the First Amendment in the U.S constitution. In the U.S Constitution the founding fathers gave every human being the right to speek freely and express their opinion. In the first amendment they also gave the right to freedom of assemble & press. It is a violation of the first amendment if someone is punished for expressing their feelings. You may not agree to something a person has said or is saying but they have the legal rights to do so.
If there wasn't an Amendment saying that an human being has the right to freedom of speech the world would be a differnt place. People would be inprisoned or even killed for some of the things they say. this article is pretty interesting. I totally agree with their ideas that no matter the time nor the day something explicit or vulgar should be said on television. Parents don't want their children to hear swear words or sexual language when their watching television late at night because they can't go to sleep.
So Much For Free Speech. August 25, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/opinion/18sun1.html?_r=1&ref=freedom_of_speech_and_expression
Constitutional Connection
First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government."
Analysis of Connection
While certain people have the right to broadcast things over the radio or the screen depending on the time & the rating. The First Amendment clearly states that a person has the right to freedom of speech. In this article it states that a person can say something at 10:00pm on broadcast television that they can't say at 9:55pm. They feel it is some things that should not be said at all on broadcast television no matter what the time is.
This article expresses the First Amendment in the U.S constitution. In the U.S Constitution the founding fathers gave every human being the right to speek freely and express their opinion. In the first amendment they also gave the right to freedom of assemble & press. It is a violation of the first amendment if someone is punished for expressing their feelings. You may not agree to something a person has said or is saying but they have the legal rights to do so.
If there wasn't an Amendment saying that an human being has the right to freedom of speech the world would be a differnt place. People would be inprisoned or even killed for some of the things they say. this article is pretty interesting. I totally agree with their ideas that no matter the time nor the day something explicit or vulgar should be said on television. Parents don't want their children to hear swear words or sexual language when their watching television late at night because they can't go to sleep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)