Tenth Amendment

Source: Lawmakers in 44 states warn Congress

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/lawmakers-in-44-states-warn-congress/

Constitution Connection:  Article 1, Section 10
"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."



Analysis of the connection:

While the federal government is trying and making changes for the nation some states are taking a stand and saying they don't want or want that for there country. Under the tenth amendment they have the right to do that, but the feds don't like,so some are fight to get it change. The feds don't want to give everyone heath care and gun control, which citizens need.

This article clearly demonstrates from my understanding of Article1,Section 10 of the U.S constitution. This  demonstrates that the federal government doesn't like the tenth amendment much because it gives the states power to makes rules or laws in that states that don't apply in other. Whereas the feds are trying to make laws for all states and some states don't agree because it's a way of taking some or their power. Some states just went along with the federal  government because they didn't want to challenge their authority, but according to the Constitution they can. The people in the states want the leader in the state to take a stand for the people.

I think that the federal government shouldn't be able to take control and make laws for all the states because then their really wouldn't be a need of  power in  each state if they cant make laws. I also think if the feds cant or don't want to follow the constitution then they shouldn't be in government. For example, it wouldn't be right if one school made all decisions and rules for all school. That wouldn't be right because each school is different with different morals and values.   

 

Fifth Amendment

Source: Justice Pleads the Fifth, By Wolverton, Cagle Cartoons  -  3/31/2007 12:00:00 AM

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/552fa28b-6af7-4621-b530-c53699bd32d3.html

Constitutional Connection: Article 1, The Legislative Branch, Section1
"The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure.

Analysis of the Connection:

This picture sends the message  that she isn't going to say nothing that would incriminate herself or anything that could be used against her in the court of law. She's holding a balanced scale because  its a symbol of how the 3 branches equally being balanced with power. The blindfold is for  a symbol of the person being tricked of forced to say or do something that could get you in trouble with the law.

This picture clearly shows Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S Constitution. This picture demonstrates a girl blindfolded holding a scale that is balanced saying in a strong, confident voice " I REFUSE TO ANSWER ON THE GROUNDS THAT I GIVE ANSWERS WOULD INCRIMINATE ME FOR OBSTRUCTION OF MYSELF!" This law protects your rights and the abuse of the government and from others. this is someone taking a stand against saying something that could incriminate you based on how it was said.

I couldn't imagine not having this law because it protests us from things that are said that you could be incriminated for. Without this law we would I have to answer questions to anyone  even if it could possibly get us in trouble. I agree with the message this picture is sending. For example, if  someone was interrogating me
about someone being tripped down the stairs I could say I plead i fifth.

Fourth Amendment

Source: U.S. Constitution 4th Amendment is Dead in America

Article 1, The Legislative Branch, Section 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB_jp3Sm1BY

Constitution Connection:

Article 1, The Legislative Branch, Section 8 "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."


Analysis of the Constitution:

A man was upset and felt a case of trespassing when a health inspector came to his house twice snooping around. The time she came with a police officer ha he approached them explaining how it was a violation of the fourth amendment to come onto his property without his permission or a warrant. The health inspector nor the police officer had neither. The police was trying to explain if he had nothing to hide he shouldn't mind, but that wasn't the point the point was under the law he had the right to tell them they couldn't come on his property. The inspector did anyway and he's going to sue and win. The police didn't even try to stop her.

This demonstrates the fourth amendment and a violation of it in the Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S Constitution. The officer and the inspector knew that he was right about the fact that if they came on his property than it would be trespassing which is against the law. This video shows that people don't care  or think about the fourth amendment because even when the man was saying he was going to sue them they just went into the property and kept walking.

I think that the inspector should have just went to get a warrant  to search his house, but i feel that the man was right about his right as a human according to the constitution. The inspector had no right to trespass in his property without permission or a warrant. The man had every right to sue because of her not having the proper things needed for her to be granted a warrant to search his house. In my opinion the officer wasn't doing his job and the inspector was rude.

Second Amendment

Source: NRA gunning for Kagan, 7/2/10


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39306.html

Constitutional  Connection:

Article 2, The Executive Branch, Section 1
"•The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms."

Analysis  of the Connection:

Some senators think people shouldn't have the right to keep and bear arms because is very dangerous to people. Kagan believes that everyone should have right to keep and bear arms especially because it's already a law. She thinks people should go by the law and that it shouldn't be changed.

This article proves Article 2, Section1 of the United States Constitution. It demonstrates reasons for why some want to keep thus law and why some don't. Some people make the claim that having the right to keep and  bear arms brings more violence and killing.  Others say that having this law keeps citizens protected from criminals. Once before  there was a case were in Chicago handguns were banned and an old man felt needed a hand gun because of the many robberies  that happen around his house. From this case it became a right  again to keep and bear arms.

I believe that Kagan is completely right because even if  this wasn't a law anymore  there would be other weapons and it would make it more difficult to protect your self.. This right has negatives and positives, but in the end i feel it is a positive law. This  article interested me because  the senators were debating on a law that was passed a long time ago.  This law is important now and days seeing crime is off the charts and people are being killing everyday in varies ways.

First Amendment: Freedom of Assembly

Source: Shop, Walk, Work and Protest, August 29, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/opinion/shop-walk-work-and-protest.html?ref=freedom_of_assembly

Constitutional Connection:

Article 2, The Executive Branch,Section 2
"The right to hold public meetings and form associations without interference by the government. Freedom of peaceful assembly is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. "


Analysis of the Connection:

In New York  they were trying to keep the protesting and marches  under control which goes by the rules of the amendment. When they tried to restrict certain places to protest it became a problem because the places would be where only a certain almost of people could hear. This upset the protester because it means they are not really getting their point across to the people. Some assembles and marches caused chaos. This chaos caused death, injuries, and destruction to people and public places. Those were some of the reasons they made restrictions.

This article demonstrates Article 2,Section 2 of the United States Constitution. New york has the right to make restrictions as to where people march and protest in New york. This article shows that New york has the right to make restrictions, but if changelled by the law the law they will win because of the first amendment. The law comes before the rights made in a state depending on the safety.

I think that the restrictions made to New york weren't all that bad because it protected the citizens from the chaos. The marches and protest could sometimes get out of control to the point where people die and are disrupted in public places. This article interested me because i didn't know a march or protested could go to the extent of death. I believe in freedom of assembly just not to point where people are harmed because they don't agree or have a different opinion.        

First Amendment: Freedom of speech

Source: Stolen Valor Act Is Declared Unconstitutional by Circuit Court, August 18, 2010

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/stolen-valor-act-is-declared-unconstitutional-by-circuit-court/?scp=1&sq=freedom%20of%20speech%20cases&st=cse
Constitutional Connection:


Article 1, The legislative branch, Section 9,''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.''1

Analysis of the Connection:

Congress believed that they had solved the problem of criminalizing speech by balancing the rights in 2006,but circuit court disagrees because in a decision made based on the defendant, Xavier Alvarez, had claimed to be a Marine and a winner of the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest, but it was true it was all a lie. Congress looks at is act as a criminalizing speech. Circuit court feels it is unconstitutional defying the defendant's freedom of speech. They make the claim that in a 2-to-1 ruling, the appellate court said that if the law were held constitutional, many everyday lies could become criminal acts.


This article obviously proves Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. Congress thought they had everything worked out when it comes to criminalizing speech 4 years ago until this case. The the family cases of the first amendment are heard by the circuit court. Circuit Court felt that if this case was a incriminalizing speech when it was all a lie then most people would be in jail lying because people do it everyday.  It shows that freedom of speech is a law and if it is a lie that doesn't  harm others or isn't a threat it is not criminalizing speech.

I feel the society would be horrible if lying was incriminalizing speech because people lie all the time. This article caught my interest because of the fact that this man almost went to jail for lying about being a Marine and a winner of the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest. This case should not have even came up because this wasn't a threat nor did it harm anyone in any way. Although, it may have offended a Marine, but this man had the right to freedom of speech. This case being was a mistake or bad idea.