Amendment 8

1. Source: A Recent Supreme Court Case on the Eight Amendment and Qualified Immunity Both Exposes and Hides the Cruelty of Prisom. April 24, 2002.
 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020424.html

2. Constituional Connection: Amendment 8 Cruel and Unusual Punishment
 "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

3. Explanation of Connection:
       The eighth amendment protects criminals who are actually in jail. The bail put on a criminal can not be to high. For example a robbery bail can not be a million dollars. The criminal can not be fined extra or punished severely. Often times in jail the convicts are treated cruelly because they are not considered citizens anymore. They are not questioned about these motives because it is considered jail life. The case Hope v. Pelzer was about a criminal being treated poorly.

       This article Clearly demonstrates the eighth amendment because it demonstrates it being broken by the prison guards in a jail in Alabama. Mr. Hope misbehaved by the railroad and as punishment he was chained to a metal post in the hot Alabama heat for seven hours with no bathroom breaks. He was only given water once or twice and at one point he was teased with water, and he was forced to watch the guard pour the water out. He was being denied the eighth amendment because he was given an unusual punishment that could have killed him.

        I feel as though the Guards should be punished for severely punishing this criminal. Being chained in the sun with no water break was a punishment created to hurt this prisoner. The prisoner is just punished while the guards just brush it off  jail life. I am positive he isn't the only prisoner to be punished, but the only one to speak up. These criminals are still human beings and should not be tortured for the mistakes they made: there is a difference between cruelty and discipline.

Amendment 6

1. Source: Justices Rule Lab Analysts Must Testify on Results. June 25,2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/26lab.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Melendez-Diaz%20v.%20Massachusetts&st=cse

2. Constitutional Connection: Amendment 6 Right To A 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. Explanation of Connection:

     The sixth amendment allows all accused the right to a trial with a small jury in the state the law was broken or crime committed. It also grants the accused of witnesses they approve of and the right to have the people who are testifying against them present. This last part of this amendment was broken recently in a court case of Melendez-Diaz vs. Massachusetts.

    This article clearly demonstrates amendment six because it shows how it was broken in court. A man was caught with drugs year ago in Virginia. His name was Mark Briscoe, and he was denied his sixth amendment. He was denied his sixth amendment right because the scientist with the data from the drugs was not present at the trial. This violates his right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. By being denied this right the scientist can not explain or fix any short comings or mistakes in the information he or she sent to the court.

    This amendment can put a large burden on all people who work on evidence such as scientists. They will have to attend every court case just to explain something as simple as drugs. I do not like this part, but if they are present at the cases any small mistakes that can cause the criminal to be punished can be solved, and can possibly save someone's life. It is a waste of time to the witnesses, but it is the thin line to jail time and freedom to the accused.

Amendment 5

1. Source: White House Crashes Remain Silent. January 20,2010.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-crashers-invoke-amendment-front-house-panel/story?id=9613116

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."

3. Explanantion of Connection:
     Amendment five grants people the right to remain silent when asked questions in court. This is called being protected form self incrimination or testifying against yourself. It also includes double jeopardy which means if someone is sent to court and found innocent they can not be charged for that same crime. It also protects people from losing their rights without a trial.

    This article clearly demonstrates the powers granted in Amendment 5 because these two people had the right to not answer any questions asked.  Michaele and Tareq Salahi were people who made it into the white house pass security and without an invitation. They were caught and brought in by homeland security to be questioned. Michaele was asked many questions and pleaded the fifth over twenty times using his right to not incriminate himself. Tareq also exercised her right by denying to answer question and plead the fifth amendment five times.

   I can not believe that people have the right to deny a question asked to them in court or by the government by saying I plead the fifth. This can protect alot of people from law enforcement who try to trick them into confessing against themselves in court. This can also protect criminals who have committed an offense  have their fifth amendment right to not answer a question.

Amendment 4

1. Source: Ohio AG Dept. & State's Top Cop Sued For Food CO-OP Raid. January 7,2009.
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news119.htm

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 protects peoples' privacy by stopping authorities from unlawfully coming into their homes and searching and taking their personal items. Authorities now need a warrant or document from  the government saying they can enter the home or area owned by a certain person.

This article clearly demonstrates how a person's fourth amendment being violated because the health department raided their home without warning or warrant.John and Jacqueline Stowers owns a company that makes organic food. This company is private and is not open to the public. Their house was raided by the sheriff with weapons. The sheriff and his group were equipped with weapons but no warrant they had no right.

I do not see why the sheriff was not punished. He had no right to not only come into someone's house and arrest them and their children for hours, but to come in armed. They denied them with a trial breaking other rights to them. The people did not commit a crime the sheriff did he should be punished instead of the family.

10th Amendment

2. Constituional Connection: Amendment 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."

3. Explanation of Connection:
      This politcal cartoon is pretaining to California's proposition 8 law which bans same-sex marriage. The cartoon shows ordinary people with crosses around their neck (religous people) and then to the two guys together. Also religious groups were one of the many that supported the ban. One of the man saying that the government shouldn't tell them what to do, it should tell gay people, which is what happened in California.

     This political cartoon clearly demonstrates amendment 10 in theUnited States constitution.  Amendment 10 gives states the power to do what they want as long as its not in the constituion. Ca;ifornia's government says that amendment 10 gives them the power as a state to ban gay marriage. States having the power within their own state is in important because without it alot of states wouldn't feel secure with the new goveernment. One of the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation was that the states had too much power;however, with amendment 10 they have some power that is limited by the constitution.

    I am for states having their own individual power; howerver, I disagree with California's ban on gay marriage. I think that violates the peoples right. No one should be told who to date or marry in this case. Like other government officials I feel that banning gay marriage is unconstituional because everyone is suppose to have equal rights according to the constitution. I feel the real battle is gay people fighting for equal rights!

2nd Amendment

1. Source: Gun Control. June 28, 2010.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/gun_control/index.html?scp=1&sq=columbia%20vs.%20heller&st=cse

2. Constituional Connection: 2nd 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."

3. Explanation of Connection:
       The second amendment grants U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. For years the actual meaning of this amendment has been debated. People feel it is only for the army and others feel they have the right to have a gun where and whenever they please.


     This article clearly demonstrates the second amendment of the United States Constitution. It shows that banning guns would be unconstitutional giving that the constituion gives people the right to bear arns. Supreme Court and other people feel that the right to bear arms should only be for the military and not US citizens. Gun control is still a worldwide debate.
     I personally would like to be able to own a gun for safe defense; however the power of this amendment is being abused. Giving US citizens the right to bear arms, gives anyone and everyone the power to own a gun. Also, with the increasing gun violence, this would be another example of how the amendment is being abused. I feel like gun control should be limited. This article gives both arguments, examples of why this amendment can be good or bad for the US people.

1st Amendment

1. Source:Angry tones mix with somber at Sept. 11 memorials. September 11, 2010.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-9-11-anniversary-20100912,0,4221905.story


2. Constituional Connection: 1st Amendment
"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:
      On a day that was suppose to honor the victims of terroists attcks on September 11, became a day of angry protests because of the mosque and islamic center being built two blocks from the world trade center.


      This article clearly demonstrates the first ammendment of the United States Constitution. Muslims are being harshly discriminated against because of the terrorists attacks ont that day. This article emphasizes that no matter what citizens othe United States has the freedom of religion or the free exercise thereof. "Honor 9-11, honor the freedom of religion" (Angry Tones Mix With......). The 2nd amendment protects muslims rights to build a religious center or mosque wherever they want. Congress can't make no law telling people wat religion to believe or practice.

     The world would be pure chaos without this amendment. Without freedom of speech, we wouldn't have newspapers or magazines. We also wouldn't have the ability to practice any religion you want without being persecuted for what you believe in. The article was interesting to me because people were really starting riots just because an islamic center was going to be built a whole two blocks away. An anit-muslim priest even threatened to burn copies of the Qurans!

Judicial Branch

1. Source: State Land for Mosque Would Spur Legal Fight. August 19,2010.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41251.html

2. Constitutional Connection: Article 3, Section 2, 11 Amendment.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) "
3. Explanation of Connection:

   Islamic leaders plan to build a mosque and cultural center two blocks away from where the World Trade Centers Twin Towers were attacked which is being stringly opposed by those who feel it brings up memories of those who died at ground zero. There was going to be a huge lawsuit but Congress tried to prevent that by swapping land that was owned by Veterans of Foriegn Posts but the U.S Court Appeals blocked that land transfer. The Supreme court sent the case back to the smaller courts for further reviewing.

This article clearly demonstrates Article 3, Section 1 of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has the power over all the smaller courts. If people feel that justice has not been made for a particular matter they take it to the supreme court for a final hearing. Judicial power must extend to all cases everyone.

This article is interesting because it shows how people are trying to prevent islamic people for building a religious center solely based on an tragic event that happened years ago, which is clearly unconstitutional. I don't think its a bad idea at all that the islamic people wants to build their mosque and cultural center. I also understand that the people just have a problem with where its being built at. I sure am glad we have the judicial branch where the Supreme Court or US Court Appeals can settle major disputes such as these.

Executive Brancch

1. Source: Rethinking US War in Afganistan .September 8,2010.\
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41871.html

2. Constituional Connection: Article 2, Section 2
"Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments"

3. Explanation of Connection:
       Barrack Obama recently gave a speech saying that "Combat Operations in Iraq are over" hoping that Americans would feel that the foreign military problems are being handled but most people felt that he should have been more focused in Afghanistan. "The Afghanistan Study Group proposal reframes the connection between America’s core foreign policy and national security objectives with both resources and a desire to enhance U.S. options rather than watch them — and the perception of U.S. power — become increasingly eroded"( Rethinking US War in Afghanistan).


    This article clearly demonstrates Article 2, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. The President is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and he decides when to go to war, although he must first go through Congress first. The purpose of having an army and navy is to enforce the will of the state when other methods have failed. The inability of Congress not having an army was one of the weaknesses in the Article of Confederations, which called for a new constitution.

    If Congress didn't have an army the US would be subjected to all kinds of horrible situations. This article is interesting because we were already fighting a meaningless war in Iraq and then come to find out we also have problems in Afghanistan. I really just want to find out how this is going to play out.

Legislative Branch

1.Senate Passes $4.5B Nutrition Bill. August 5,2010.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40719.html

2.Constituional Connection: Article1, Legislative Branch, Section 8,

"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."

3.Explanation of Connection:
       The laws we live under are proposed by congress. Many bills are proposed and sent to the president but only a few are made into laws. A new bill was proposed recently. The Senate just voted to approve a $4.5 billion childhood nutrition bill, which funds public food programs in public schools.


    This clearly demonstrates the power giving to the legislative branch in Article 1, Section 8 because Congress has the right to propose bills and make laws they feel would better the United States. President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama feels that this bill will greatly benefit the health of the children and give them the nutrition they need in the schools. This article demonstrates how bills are passed. They have to go through the House and Senate and then the president has to agree to it as well, which is demonstrated in this article.

     I'm for this bill being passed, because speaking from personal experience, the food in the public schools are not all that great and not nutritious. I also think it's great that our president as well as congress cares a great deal of his people to want to keep them healthy and want to tackle the problem of obesity in children. Where would we be if congress didn't make laws like these and bills like these that benefited the people?